Lord Chidgey

David William George Chidgey, Esquire, having been created Baron Chidgey, of Hamble-le-Rice in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Williams of Crosby and the Lord Livsey of Talgarth.

Baroness Tonge

Jennifer Louise Tonge, having been created Baroness Tonge, of Kew in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Hamwee and the Baroness Williams of Crosby.

St Helena

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the interview given by the Department for International Development programme manager about the proposed airport for St Helena, reported in the St Helena Catalogue, gives a satisfactory account of their plans; and when they will set out their position on the protection of endemic species and the provision of facilities for tourists.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, a project memorandum, which provides more information about these and other issues, has been placed on the DfID website and in the House of Lords Library. It offers a better account than the report of the interview referred to in the Question, which contained a number of omissions and misunderstandings.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the Government for that Answer and for the actions they have taken, at long last, to try and restore some life to the rather dwindling population of St Helena. However, it is important that we are able to follow the progress in solving the many problems, two of which were mentioned in the original Question. I am delighted to know that there is a better answer in the House of Lords Library. Will the Government be able to continue to keep us informed so that we can see how they are solving the very difficult problems which they have to confront?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitley, that a full independent environmental impact assessment will be conducted before there is any invitation for the design, build and operate contract. Action to mitigate any negative impacts will be set out in an environmental management plan, which will be legally binding on the contractor. I know that the noble Lord is particularly concerned about the endemic species involved.
	Longer term protection could be afforded by the establishment of a protected area around the site under existing legislation in St Helena. With respect to tourism, we will also be looking at the St Helena Government's tourism strategy.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Is she aware that to reach St Helena takes two days from Ascension Island, three and a half from Namibia, 14 from the UK and seven from Cape Town? It is one of the most isolated inhabited islands in the world. There are at least 20 endemic invertebrate species in the plain where the airport is scheduled to be built that exist nowhere else on the planet. Following her Answer, will she tell us what steps will be taken to relocate the endemic species on St Helena to avoid their extinction during the construction of the airport?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I understand that there will be no need to move the endemic species. There will be a full environmental impact study out of which will come an environmental management plan which the contractors will have to take on board. There may be an impact on about 15 per cent of the area, but it is anticipated that once the environmental impact assessment is done, there will actually be longer term benefits for a wider area which the contractor will have to take on board because it will be part of the contract.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, what effect will the expected airport and therefore the expected removal of RMS "St Helena" from the area have on other islands in that area, especially Tristan da Cunha?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, RMS "St Helena" calls at Tristan de Cunha only once a year, so the other routes will remain as they are. With respect to Ascension Island, which is likely to be more of an issue, once the contract for St Helena airport is let and there are negotiations with a service provider, we anticipate that there will be charter flights between St Helena and Ascension, but those have yet to be negotiated.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the Leader of the House tell us when it is hoped that the airport will open and what services will operate to and from St Helena when it is open?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are working to a timescale of 2010, although for a project such as this it would be a brave person who would say that the airport would definitely be open by then. However, we are working to that date. There will be negotiations with a service provider; it is anticipated that the services will be between St Helena and somewhere in southern Africa. The number of flights a week will also be part of that negotiation.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, is it sensible that that very isolated island and the adjacent islands will have contact with the outside world only via aircraft? Is it sensible as well for there not to be any form of shipping service for freight?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there will be a continuing shipping service for freight on a commercial basis. At the moment the part of the service on RMS "St Helena" which needs to be subsidised is the passenger service, so I do not in any way anticipate that the commercial freight element will not continue.

Energy: Research, Development and Training

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are concerned about the collapse in research and development and training in energy alleged by the Council for Science and Technology in its report of 31 May 2005.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are concerned about the decline in research, development and training in energy and have taken action to increase the amount of publicly funded R&D. DTI and research council expenditure on energy R&D increased from £34 million in 1998–99 to an estimated £60 million in 2004–05. That amount is projected to rise to at least £95 million by 2007–08. The Government are also supporting a range of demonstration activity worth more than £300 million between 2002 and 2008. A UK energy research partnership, bringing together public and private funders of energy research, is being set up and the Energy and Utility Sector Skills Council is working with industry to develop a strategy for training and development.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response, but would he not agree that over the years there has been a continuing fall—until very recently—in the level of R&D and training in energy? It now represents a mere 5 per cent of what it was pre-privatisation, and only 10 per cent and 20 per cent respectively of what is being spent in France and Germany. Furthermore, would he not agree that the reduced level of expenditure in that area is itself too fragmented to have a major impact? What is now required is an urgent review of the whole area of investment in energy, in view of the importance attached to energy policy, with a view to increasing the quantum and concentrating the impact.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there has obviously been a very considerable fall over the years in spending on R&D. The major part of that has been the fall in nuclear R&D. I agree that, with regard to the international comparisons, we appear still out of line with what other countries are doing, even with the substantial increases that we have made in recent years. As part of the spending review for 2006 we shall revisit that area.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister say what percentage of the expenditure on R&D covers hydrogen production and storage—in particular, hydrogen storage when linked to wind or water turbines?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have recently issued a report in answer to the independent report that came out on hydrogen energy, UK Strategic Framework. The package of measures in that will have funding of £50 million.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say what efforts are being made to increase the numbers of graduate engineers, because there seems to be a reduction in that regard? Can he also say how much is being spent on R&D in tidal and wave power, because the sums seem to be dwarfed by those that are being ploughed into how to deal with the legacy of the nuclear industry?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the situation with graduate numbers in engineering and technology is the one weak area in the number of young people doing science. The figure has gone down from 87,000 in 1997–98 to about 80,000, but has stabilised at that level in the past few years. Clearly there is an issue there, and we are taking steps to increase the number of graduate engineers.
	The figure for R&D in tidal energy is about £50 million, but I shall check that figure and write to the noble Lord if it is not correct.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, further to that question, can the Minister give us some idea of the proportion of women engineers?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot, but I shall write to the noble Lord. It is interesting that a very high proportion—over 40 per cent, I think—of young people doing science and technology, the number of which has increased by 120,000 since 1997–98, are women. However, I shall look at the specific question of women engineers and let the noble Lord know.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the noble Lord not particularly concerned about the decline in expenditure in R&D and training in the nuclear energy field, particularly in view of the fact that it looks increasingly as though the Government may well be persuaded that nuclear energy and nuclear power stations must be revived in due course?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that has been an area of concern in the context of keeping open the nuclear option. We have taken steps to improve the situation.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is it not a fact that, before one builds new nuclear power stations, it would not be a bad idea to dispose safely of the nuclear waste that the existing ones have created? How much research is going into the safe disposal of nuclear waste, rather than storing it or finding places to dump it underground or wherever?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a programme on dealing with nuclear waste. I shall write to the noble Lord and let him know exact figures.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lord Roberts about training and preparation for alternative energy sources to oil and gas, of which nuclear obviously is the chief one, has the Minister noticed that the President of the United States is committing his administration to open up the nuclear programme in America; that Finland is building five new stations; that China is building dozens of new stations; and that all over the world people are reaching decisions that this is the way forward, of course with proper control of nuclear waste? Does he not realise that the training for this programme, even if we open it in 15 years, has to begin now? That training is not taking place. Can he give us a more reassuring and confident answer that we really are gripping this problem?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords, we are aware that, in areas across the world, there has been a change and people are contemplating plans to build new nuclear power stations. The training of engineers is obviously important, and that is why the sector skills council in this area has been doing work on it. There are other sources of nuclear energy expertise in this country. The submarine programme and naval forces have considerable knowledge and expertise of training people in this area.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, my noble friend frequently talks about keeping the nuclear option open. Does he have any idea, and can he inform noble Lords, of the date by which that option either has to be taken up or is closed down?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that during this Parliament a decision will have to be reached on the whole nuclear question.

Terrorism: Protection of Public Buildings

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will seek ways to ensure that the substantial obstacles placed before public buildings in order to withstand terrorist attack are made more aesthetically acceptable.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, when providing specialist protective security advice to site owners, the police and the Security Service work closely with planning and transport authorities from an early stage to ensure that security, transport, environmental and design considerations are fully identified and addressed. The Government's research and development programme currently includes work to update techniques to mitigate the potential effects of hostile vehicle threat in line with the latest information about terrorist attack methodologies, and that has already resulted in a range of temporary and permanent measures that can be deployed in urban and rural settings.

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply and I realise that security anxieties are likely to last a long time. But do not the Government think that it would be appropriate and in keeping with our national traditions and urban standards if some of the eyesores which we encounter, particularly when arriving at this House or looking at the Foreign Office from St James's Park or looking at the Cabinet Offices from Horse Guards, might be replaced in keeping with aesthetic designs without any loss of security, that work perhaps being undertaken in collaboration with an architect with industrial and engineering experience?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the Government are very conscious that some of the temporary measures are not perhaps as aesthetically pleasing as one would like but they are effective as regards risk management. I certainly assure noble Lords that the design of such structures is very much taken into account. Although short-term measures may not be as pleasing to the eye as we would like, other measures are well in place and could be used in the future.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the security arrangements outside the Italian parliament building in Rome comprise concrete blocks which we know and love, but that theirs are filled with flowers which look beautiful? May I invite my noble friend to come on a trip of inspection with me to see what is possible?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I would be delighted to go anywhere with my noble friend, as he knows. However, I reassure noble Lords that we understand the ways in which these measures can be adapted and changed. Those issues are being very carefully looked at. Short-term effective reduction in vulnerability is one thing, longer term permanent structures are another. Those issues are of real importance.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, how far have the plans for pedestrianisation of the Westminster area advanced, particularly outside Parliament? Would such obstacles be necessary with that approach?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot comment on pedestrianisation as noble Lords will know that that is not within my ken. These structures are very carefully calibrated. The most important factor is for them to be effective but the design issue is also important. Noble Lords will know that there are other buildings which I am not at liberty to name with precision which have more aesthetically pleasing barriers. That is something to which we can aspire in due course.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Baroness indicated that these arrangements may have to continue for some considerable time. Does she agree that the American Embassy constitutes one of the most hideous examples of security arrangements in the capital? As it is clear that security arrangements at the embassy will have to continue for some time or for as far as one can see into the future, cannot steps be taken with our American allies to ensure that it no longer looks like a temporary labour camp in some east European country but that something is done to make it aesthetically acceptable as well as secure?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reiterate that these issues are being looked at. One of the difficulties I have is that noble Lords would hate me to give a timetable which would be alighted upon by others. All I can say is that there are more aesthetically pleasing structures elsewhere. Those issues are being looked at. Your Lordships can look forward to a delightful future when the concrete blocks may not be here although I cannot tell your Lordships when that will be.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, Horse Guards Parade has been mentioned. My noble friend will be aware that the horrible concrete blocks across the end of it have been replaced by proper bollards which look very aesthetically pleasing. Will my noble friend explain why the concrete blocks have been put back inside the bollards as a second form of defence? It seems to me rather a waste to spend all that money on pop-up bollards as a security measure and then put concrete blocks back inside them.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, every metre of stand-off counts in relation to security. The scientific assessment is made with real precision. We are advantaged in as much as there are new, great precision blocks that can be used and will be used. The most important thing for the moment is to ensure that there is a visual deterrent and that it is discreet and effective. Security is of primary importance. Other matters, such as aesthetics, are important but cannot impinge on the fundamental security of the buildings.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, are the blocks of any use at all? I believe that the concrete blocks are not shatterproof, so they are in fact worse than useless. If there was a bomb outside Parliament, we would all probably be killed by the shattered blocks rather than by the bomb. What are we about?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that the blocks have a really substantial effect. When you look at the science of how the blocks are shaped and created and the way in which they can better protect, it is absolutely clear that they may not be pleasing to the eye, but they are better than not having them there. I can certainly assure your Lordships of that.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will my noble friend look into the case put by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain? What she said is true. Is it not the case that they simply provide a physical barrier against vehicles that might want to come nearer to this institution? Is there not every need for very early action to be taken to ensure that they are replaced by something more aesthetically pleasing? There can be no excuse for delay.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there is no delay; energetic efforts are being made. I reiterate that it would be very foolish indeed for me to indicate when one sort of security will be there and when another sort of security may be replaced. Therefore, I am not able to tell noble Lords when it will happen. However, I assure your Lordships that the design, the nature, and the issue that was raised by the noble Baroness are of real importance and are very much at the forefront of the minds of the security services and of others who are responsible for these matters. They are being dealt with well.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, have the blocks been physically tested in a laboratory or anywhere else; and if so, when?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the design of all the barriers that have been put up has been scientifically tested. I repeat that we have discovered through bitter experience that every metre of stand-off counts. Noble Lords know that the threat that we now face has mutated and changed, and the barriers that we put in place are there to meet that threat.

UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change

Baroness Williams of Crosby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish their response to the recommendations in the report of the United Nations High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we welcomed the High-level Panel report on Threats, Challenges and Change in December 2004 as an ambitious blueprint for tackling the challenges facing the international community. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs presented the report to the other place in February. I have placed copies of his introduction to the document in the Library of the House. The report was a major contribution to the preparations for September's millennium review summit.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer, but he will recall that in its report in another place the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said:
	"We recommend that, in its response to this Report, the Government set out its policy position on the implementation of the Panel's recommendations".
	We are about to become the president of the European Union and of the G8 in a very few days. The Minister will be aware that the United Nations, which is an indispensable international organisation, is coming under organised and unremitting criticism from a certain section in particular of the US Congress. Therefore, it is important for the United Kingdom Government to make plain their support for the United Nations and for reforms—which are certainly needed—to the United Nations.
	Will the Minister promise the House that this will receive urgent attention from the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister so that it can be done while the United Kingdom is in this powerful and uniquely influential position?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I completely accept the proposition that the United Nations is vital to our interests. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel reassured that we have made explicit our priorities during our presidency in relation to reform of the United Nations. They will be for more and better aid achieved through faster progress towards the MDGs, environmental sustainability and tackling climate change, the establishment of a peace-building commission to assist states emerging from conflict, comprehensive counter-terrorism policy, agreement on a responsibility to protect, improvement of the UN's response to humanitarian crises, and reform of the human rights machinery. Also, there should be significant administrative changes to streamline the Secretariat and enlarge the Security Council. All those are explicit priorities to which the Government are committed, and for which we will use our presidency of both the EU and, with the support of the EU, the G8.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the Government give their full support to the criteria or principles for the use of force, which were set out both in the high-level panel report and in the Secretary-General's report, In Larger Freedom? They will be on the table in September. I did not notice any reference to them in the list that the Minister rattled off, after having given a somewhat general reply to the Question, if I may say so.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the whole issue about the criteria advanced by Kofi Annan is one with which there is a good deal of sympathy. However, there is also felt to be a need for further and detailed discussion about it. The United Nations has not always been successful in peacekeeping missions, preventing human rights abuses, or protecting those who need the greatest protection—those who are often most vulnerable. A good deal of detailed work is required to make sure that, when the United Nations puts blue berets or helmets on people, it knows exactly what it is doing and what purpose it has in mind.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the report was extremely valuable; the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, among others, made a notable contribution to it. However, has the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, not reminded us of what is happening in the US Congress? Has the Minister noted that the US Congress is delaying the whole business of American contributions to the UN, which is a serious matter as America is by far its biggest funder and financier? Congress is doing that because it is particularly concerned about the way in which human rights commissions and committees are set up by the UN, with a chairman or chair country often from or being a country that abuses human rights. Do we share that concern?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the issues in front of the United States Senate, including the appointment of an ambassador to the United Nations, are matters for the United States. However, we certainly share the view that the various agencies and bodies under the auspices of the United Nations that undertake its principal responsibilities and duties must all act in a co-ordinated way. They must not duplicate each other's functions; that is wasteful and does not achieve the results that everyone wants. They must all work to the same sets of priorities. Kofi Annan has been pretty explicit in sharpening up those priorities, which should be of great benefit not only to the UN but to all the interlinking agencies.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, as the Minister will know, the UN has been involved in some active peacekeeping operations with mixed consequences in the past few years. The Brahimi report recommended strengthening the peacekeeping operations department, and adding to the number of staff available to it. How much more do the British Government think needs to be done to strengthen the Secretariat in that important work, if we are to push the agenda on the responsibility to protect?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, as I said, that is one of the fundamental issues that needs to be resolved before the final documentation is agreed for the September conference. However, lessons are being learnt about some of the less successful operations, as well as about some of the more successful ones. It is easy to forget that some of the operations have been rather successful, with a significant contribution from a number of nations that do not always get credit for it. Where there has been a failure—where people who need to be protected have not been protected—it seems critical to go in a forensic way through what has gone wrong, and make sure that it is corrected, understood, and part of the outcome of the September report.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, a Statement will be repeated this afternoon on removals to Zimbabwe. It will be given by my noble friend Lady Ashton and we shall take it at a convenient time after 3.30 pm, during the Committee stage of the Road Safety Bill.

Commons Bill [HL]

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about common land and town or village greens. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bach.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Harbours Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the procedure for dealing with applications for orders under Sections 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964 and for making orders under Section 15 of that Act, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Berkeley.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Fraud Bill [HL]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Road safety grants]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (3),"

Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may begin by saying what a pleasure it is to be before your Lordships' House and, indeed, the Minister once again to discuss this important piece of legislation. An earlier form of the Bill was discussed in another place prior to the dissolution of Parliament. We now have a valuable opportunity to scrutinise it at some length in this House and to improve it whenever and wherever possible.
	Before I turn to the first set of amendments in this group, I declare an interest as the leader of Essex County Council, a local authority that, I can assure your Lordships, takes road safety very seriously.
	This set of amendments tries to probe the Government a little further on road safety grants. Amendment No. 1 is merely an enabling amendment that allows the following amendment in this group to be incorporated into Clause 1. Amendment No. 3 is a probing amendment that is designed to elicit from the Minister how this clause will work in practice. Clause 1 enables the Secretary of State or the National Assembly of Wales to,
	"make payments to any local authority or body for meeting the whole or part of the running costs of any measures for promoting road safety".
	That extended fund replaces existing road traffic legislation provisions and will impact upon the work of local councils. There is no firm indication, as yet, as to the size of the grant, whether it will be top-sliced from existing funding sources, or how it will be delivered—whether it will be ring-fenced, for example.
	Local authorities are, therefore, keen to see further details of this grant and how it relates to routine funding of road safety infrastructure for local transport plans. Amendment No. 3 would, therefore, ensure that local councils were involved in the planning and implementation of any road safety-funded infrastructure on local road networks.
	Amendment No. 4, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, would require the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly to report to Parliament on the grants given and any assessment that had been made as to their effectiveness. Again, we are trying to tease out how the grant would work in practice, what size it would be, and, particularly, how it would be measured and who would assess them.
	Finally, Amendment No. 5 would allow a national transport authority—the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly for Wales—not to provide payments to any organisation that formed part of a safety camera partnership. In essence, we are seeking an explanation as to why the safety camera partnerships that have been set up in almost every area of the country—comprising local authorities, police authorities and others—would be unable to spend their resources on road safety in a manner in which the clause states that money can be spent. If the partnerships were able to spend money on road safety without constraint, there would be no need for this clause.
	The partnerships have a lot of money. One estimate suggests that they reap £60 million to £100 million per annum from speeding offences. It seems to me that that figure is increasing all the time. It was about £600,000 in 1966 and the current figure is about £4 million. The partnerships have an enormous income and many people might ask why some of that money cannot be reinvested in speed indicator signs so that people are warned that they are exceeding the speed limit. There is no penalty if one does not comply with the signs, but they have a good impact in improving road safety and ensuring that people reduce their speed.
	The trouble is that all these measures and signs cost money, and many local authorities say that they do not have the resources for them. Therefore, this amendment makes certain that this money is diverted to road safety. The Government should reinvest the money from fines coming through safety camera partnerships into the area of road safety. It should not be sent to the Home Office. That is the purpose of this amendment. I beg to move.

Viscount Simon: The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has in one sentence encapsulated what I was going to say on my Amendment No. 4. However, I shall expand on it very slightly. Amendment No. 4 requires the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly to report on grants given and any assessment that has been made of their effectiveness, as the noble Lord said. This would allow greater scrutiny of the grant scheme and ensure that grants are being appropriately used.
	The grant-making powers under Clause 1 are very positive and would make it easier for innovative projects to be funded. In particular, the grants could be used to fund projects that aim to tackle the greater incidence of road casualties in disadvantaged communities, such as the neighbourhood road safety initiative. Children in the lowest socio-economic group are five times more likely to be killed as pedestrians than their counterparts in higher socio-economic groups. The Government have adopted a PSA target to address the significantly higher number of road casualties in disadvantaged areas. Road safety grants for projects aimed at dealing with disadvantaged areas could be used as one means of achieving this.

Lord Berkeley: I also put my name to Amendment No. 4. It is difficult to add to what the two previous noble Lords have said. While welcoming this road safety grant proposal, I and, I am sure, the many other noble Lords who have tabled amendments, have been submerged by papers and lobbying from credible and committed people with different interests. They all have particular points of view, some of which we may agree with and some we may not. It is desperately important that as these things go ahead not only should the national transport authority publish an annual report, as has been set out in this amendment, but it should also analyse the effectiveness of the grants. As my noble friend Lord Simon said, it is very easy to come up with one's own prejudices in these matters. The only solution is to have proper statistics and analysis that can be used as the basis on which to go forward and make any changes necessary in the future. I support this amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: Before the Minister replies, the expenditure that local authorities are able to make on road safety and transport schemes is not clearly earmarked in the block grant so it is not easy to see what money is being expended. It is part of the block grant that covers many things and I understand that, if they wish to do so, local authorities may chose to spend the money on things other than road safety.
	Secondly, is the Minister aware that local authorities have huge queues of road safety schemes? They all have a queue of schemes under such examples as Better Ways to Schools and skid resistant treatment on the approach to roundabouts, which are known to be effective in reducing road casualties. For minor road works, such as improving sight lines and junction alignment, most authorities have large numbers of schemes. They prioritise them according to the money available, which is very little so the schemes get no attention.
	I could go on and tell the Committee about the number of zebra and pelican crossing schemes and other desirable safety schemes which cannot be funded—indeed, even schemes for marking roads properly are not being funded because no money is available.
	Money is being raised, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, reminded us, through the speed camera partnerships. It would be much more acceptable to motorists if the money raised from such partnerships were clearly expended on road safety schemes, so that people could see that the fines they pay, albeit reluctantly, result in some benefit locally.
	At Second Reading the Minister drew attention to the fact that our safety record is good. It is better than most European countries. But I would suggest that a great deal of that betterment has come from the better design of cars.
	If the Government are to achieve the targets they have set, they will have to look a bit harder and a bit further. As we go through the Bill, we will suggest ways in which the road safety target will be met if they adopt some of the amendments. But if they go ahead on the present basis of not allowing sufficient money to be spent locally on road safety, and if they refuse various amendments, which we will discuss later, achieving the targets will be very much in doubt. We shall reach the end of the period with yet another failed target because the Government have not taken timely action. Certainly, the proceeds of speed camera partnerships represent a ready source of money which most people would applaud if it were devoted to road safety.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I want to emphasise to the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Hanningfield, that of course the main purpose of Clause 1 is to clarify the scope for funding large-scale demonstration projects. We want to provide, as I think both noble Lords were seeking, uncomplicated funding arrangements for the local authorities who undertake such projects and we want to improve the administrative arrangements. So I am at one with them when they press for the need for clarity in this area and improvement in that respect.
	I want to clear up again that canard which refuses to fade away and which was referred to at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, gave me credit for having made a valiant attempt at Second Reading to do so. He reiterated the question so I shall reiterate the answer. Under the rules we apply to the safety camera partnerships, money is available to them to fund safety camera operational expenditure through camera revenue netting offer arrangements. They cannot use these funds for any other purpose. Where authorities wish to undertake road safety measures to complement the cameras, there are existing funding mechanisms through capital allocations and rate support grants. So we are quite clear about the specific nature of the moneys that are raised through the safety camera partnerships on the question of camera revenue and it is toward specific ends.
	Amendments Nos. 1 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would amend Clause 1 so that a national transport authority—either the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—could not provide payments to any organisation that forms part of a safety camera partnership. I should explain that a partnership is a voluntary grouping that enables police forces and highway authorities to operate safety cameras effectively. Almost all highway authorities are involved in such partnerships.
	In addition to that problem, the amendments would mean that any authority associated with a safety camera partnership would be disqualified from seeking funding for a large-scale road safety project, whether entirely unrelated to safety cameras or whether safety cameras were just one small constituent part of a whole package of measures to address a specific road safety problem in an area.
	I assure the Committee that I understand the noble Lord's search for clarity; that is an objective that we all share. But I am sure that he would not want to press his amendments, which would have such a detrimental effect on the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, described his Amendment No. 3 as a probing amendment. It would mean that a national transport authority—the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—could not provide payments to any organisation that is not a local authority without prior consultation with the relevant local authority or authorities.
	I am of course grateful for the noble Lord's explanation of his desire to use the amendment to tease out more clearly the Government's intention. The national transport authority already has the power to make grants to bodies other than local authorities under Section 40 of the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998. In 2004–05, a total of almost £340,000—worth of small grants were made under the road safety challenge fund to charities and bodies other than local authorities with innovative proposals to improve road safety and reduce casualties. The grant process is carefully regulated and quite transparent. To receive grants of up to £20,000, applicants must meet specific, published criteria. Grant funding is allocated to proposers with a national rather than local impact.
	The effect of Amendment No. 3 on existing arrangements for allocating grants to bodies other than local authorities is significant. It would mean that central government would need to consult all local authorities within an area to provide a grant to another body in that area, regardless of whether that body or grant-funded project had significant links in the area. Grant funding made to bodies other than local authorities is for projects with a national impact and it would not be appropriate to consult local authorities prior to allocating such grants. That is why the clause is drafted as it is. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, will feel that he has probed successfully and elicited from me a clear response.

Lord Hanningfield: As I said, these are all probing amendments. We all support the idea of better road safety, but if we are to achieve it, we need more money. There is no doubt about that. I repeat that I lead a large local authority that could easily save about 40 lives a year if we improved our road safety measures, but we need more money to do that. Local authorities will mainly be the bodies to do that, not others. I was asking the Minister where the money for local authorities indicated on Second Reading was coming from. He gave no indication of any extra money for local authorities in his answer just now. Where does that money come from? We raised the issue of speed cameras because that money now goes into the Home Office but it could go towards road safety. From where will the Government get the money to do some of the things that we are talking about?

Lord Davies of Oldham: We are not talking about the road safety budget at the moment. I am debating with the noble Lord not the allocation of resources but the process by which any such allocation should occur under Clause 1. The noble Lord's amendments are tests of process.
	I agree that we could improve road safety by spending more money. On a range of extremely meritorious projects that are mentioned regularly in the House a case is made for additional expenditure, and the Government recognise that case frequently. However, we are confined by the limit of national resources that we can make available. Like many other demands for measures with benign effects on citizens, those for road safety resources are almost limitless.
	I am not talking about the desirability of spending more money. The noble Lord will find no keener advocate of that than me. We are talking about the process by which decisions should be reached. I was responding to the noble Lord's amendments in that measure, indicating how the process by which decisions should be reached is envisaged in Clause 1. That process is entirely reasonable, although I recognise noble Lords' right to press strongly on the matter. It would be unfair at this stage for me to become involved in great debate about the allocation of resources for road safety.
	My noble friends Lord Simon and Lord Berkeley, together with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, spoke to Amendment No. 4, which would amend Clause 1 so that a national transport authority would be required to publish an annual report setting out certain information about road safety grants. I share their objective to have as much information as possible in the public domain. It helps everyone to judge the effectiveness of the resources devoted to road safety.
	The information requested in Amendment No. 4 is already available, so it would duplicate what we are already doing. Every year, the Government publish a breakdown of road safety Challenge Fund grants allocated and the purpose for which they are allocated on the Department for Transport's website. Criteria for receiving that grant include outlining arrangements for proper monitoring and explaining the road safety outcomes expected.
	The Government provide grants to local authorities for road safety demonstration projects. Unlike the road safety Challenge Fund, those are longer-term projects and do not involve an annual bidding round. Details of grants received by authorities involved in our demonstration projects and the purpose of those projects are available on the website. The Government have let an evaluation contract for each project to monitor its effectiveness. One of the key aims of the projects is to disseminate good practice, so it is important that we have a robust understanding of their effectiveness. We intend to meet what I think is the thrust of the amendment: to make available as much information as possible.
	In the case of demonstration projects, which last more than a year, it is not always appropriate to feed back annually the information requested in the amendment. Definitive assessments of road safety evaluation often require the collection of information over a longer period—three years of accident data, for example—and rarely can the effectiveness of a road safety grant be evaluated in the same year in which it is made. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise the validity of that point.
	Full results evaluating the effectiveness of those projects will be published when they become available. Annual reporting lacks the responsiveness of the existing process for dissemination of information, which we put on the website. An annual report could provide information about grants up to 12 months later than under the existing system. So we maintain that we are open and more effective with our present arrangements.
	The road safety demonstration projects are covered in this year's Department for Transport annual report. Given that information on current road safety grants is already available through the Department for Transport website annual report, I do not feel that a separate annual report on road safety grants is required.
	I hope that it will be recognised that we share with the supporters of the amendment the desire for openness. We are taking steps to achieve it. I am indicating the limitations of the concept of the annual report referred to in Amendment No. 4. I hope that noble Lords will withdraw that amendment and not move the other amendments.

Lord Bradshaw: Before the Minister sits down, can he make it quite clear that the Government are not prepared to spend any of the money from the camera safety partnerships on promoting road safety? That is my first point. My second point is that, although we are going to have national demonstration projects, the road safety priorities, which are best determined locally, will still be funded through the existing lugubrious method, which may or may not produce the money.
	I assure the Minister that county engineers know of hundreds of places where improvements to road safety could be made if the money were available. I feel that in the past few moments the Minister has been relying on references to national demonstration projects and what the national roads authority will do, but the people at the coal face know what needs doing and would put it into practice straight away if, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, the money was available.

Lord Davies of Oldham: We are in danger of having a debate on amendments to a clause descend into a debate about the resources available. I merely reiterate to the noble Lord that the national demonstration projects have value. There is an openness about the reports on them, and that is the subject of the amendment to which I have sought to reply.
	Of course, if there is value in the information contained in the department's annual report—in addition to what we already provide—I am prepared to accept that concept and to look at it further. I was merely seeking to indicate that in the evaluation of the projects and the dissemination of the information, an annual report would not suffice; it would not meet the requirements identified by noble Lords when speaking to the amendments.
	I recognise the validity of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that local authorities have schemes as long as anyone's arm which they would like to implement on road safety. They would not be conscientious and intelligent local authorities if they did not have a multiplicity of schemes—not all of which, it is true, can be funded overnight, not even through the munificence of the Department for Transport. However, the noble Lord will also recognise that there are areas in which it is extremely useful to have demonstration projects from which lessons can be learnt across the country. They may not involve huge amounts of expenditure, but they will give a clear illustration of what is best value for money with certain projects. That is what is envisaged for the process in Clause 1.
	I hope that, despite the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the House will recognise that the amendments do not advance the cause advocated and that the Government are fully cognisant of the valid points made in all speeches.

Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for his full and detailed response to Amendment No. 4. That is all I intend to say.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for his comments on Amendment No. 4, but I cannot thank him too much for his comments on some of the other amendments. However, they are probing amendments. We will certainly think of different wording and come back to the issue as the Bill goes on.
	In my local authority, Essex, we prepare a local transport plan each year, which is an enormously thick document. If we are lucky, we get around £30 million a year, which seems quite a lot of money, but it has a lot to do. A little more extra money, particularly for road safety, would make the world of difference. I repeat, we think that we could save 40 lives a year in Essex by further investment on road safety. Whatever national demonstrations or organisations are involved, local authorities will do it because they know where money can be invested to save lives.
	My first amendment was to see whether any money would be available in rate support grant or local transport plans, or whether money would be allocated. I agree that this is not the time. The Minister said that it is a process and these amendments are about process. But if money is to be allocated, we need to know that there is a process for doing so. We do not need to know the actual amounts, but we need to know that there might be a process whereby money might come from somewhere.
	The other amendment in the group referred to a big surplus. No one is denying or saying that we should not invest money in the camera system, but there is an enormous surplus in it. Certainly, one would not want to stop money being reinvested in it, but why should the surplus go to the Home Office? Why can it not be invested in road safety, which is what it is all about? The amendments were probing amendments to elicit answers from the Government on how money might be recycled or how local authorities might obtain more money through the process. Those questions were not answered at all by the Minister.
	We will come back to it. As we go through the Bill, several amendments will cover it. We will have to pursue this because if we are to save lives, which is what it is all about, we will need to know more about it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Zimbabwe: Asylum Seekers

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to make a Statement on the return of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe.
	"Like all issues of removals, policy in this area is inevitably difficult and sensitive. On 16 November last year, the then Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Nationality, the right honourable Member for Kilmarnock, announced the lifting of the temporary suspension of enforced removals of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe. The effect of this announcement was to make the process of removals to Zimbabwe the same as for every other country in the world. In short, the Home Office assesses cases on their individual merits, providing protection to those who need it and seeking to remove those who do not.
	"This means that Zimbabweans who meet the definition of a refugee in the 1951 Geneva Convention are granted asylum. If they do not qualify for asylum, but there are other circumstances that make them particularly vulnerable and engage our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, they are granted humanitarian protection or discretionary leave. If their application is refused, they have a right of appeal to the independent asylum and immigration tribunal. If the appeal is unsuccessful, that means that it has been judged safe for that particular individual to return to Zimbabwe.
	"I have considered, with the Foreign Secretary, whether, in the light of recent events in Zimbabwe, we should reverse last November's decision. We have agreed that recent events do not materially change our earlier decision, but that we will keep the situation, together with any new information, under constant review. As before, it is clear that there are Zimbabweans in need of international protection. In particular, members of the Opposition in Zimbabwe or others who establish that they have engaged in activities that will cause them to be persecuted by the Zimbabwean Government will continue to be granted asylum. In the 15 months to March this year, we granted asylum or discretionary leave at initial decision to 270 Zimbabweans with no substantiated reports of mistreatment on return.
	"But not all Zimbabweans who claim asylum here genuinely face persecution. It is an important part of ensuring an effective and fair asylum system that those found not to be in need of international protection are removed from the UK. The blanket suspension of all removals to any country can only encourage those seeking to get round our controls for reasons nothing to do with their political activity or fear of persecution. Having a moratorium on returns to one country means that failed asylum seekers from other countries will mount legal challenges to get their country treated in the same way.
	"That is why we are right to look at each case on its merits. We will examine with great care each individual case before removal and we will not remove anyone who we believe is at risk on their return. As part of this, we will remain in close contact with civil society and opposition parties in Zimbabwe. My honourable friend the Member for Vauxhall has sent us representations on a number of cases and I have asked my officials to examine these carefully, and of course we will consider other representations about individuals.
	"A number of Zimbabweans are currently in our removal estate. As of this morning, 57 were declining to accept their meals in an effort to press their case for non-return. Conditions around their health and well-being are being carefully monitored and managed.
	"Our policy on returns does not in any way change our categorical opposition to human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. There is no doubt that political persecution, abuses of human rights and denial of basic freedom persist in Zimbabwe, and we will continue to provide asylum to those Zimbabweans who need our protection. We will also continue, bilaterally and with our international partners, to push the Government of Zimbabwe to end human rights abuses there and restore democracy so that all Zimbabweans can, in time, return safely to help build a prosperous and stable country".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this Statement from the Home Secretary. We all appreciate that this is a difficult area, one full of subjective judgments. But is it not clear that in this case something has gone badly wrong? Over many months, Members on all Benches and in all parties have repeatedly put questions to Ministers about the return of detainees and would-be asylum seekers. Indeed, Members of this House, such as my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, have repeatedly raised the issue with Ministers. To be fair, Ministers have repeatedly acknowledged that the situation in Zimbabwe is indeed appalling, that outrages are committed there and that a reign of terror persists in the country.
	So we are again left asking, first, why there was a change of policy last November, when the moratorium that had previously been in place on returns to Zimbabwe was dropped; and, secondly, why there is now no change to that policy. As the Statement just repeated by the noble Baroness affirms,
	"We have agreed that recent events do not materially change our earlier decision, but we will keep the situation, together with any new information, under constant review."
	But the point is that the situation is changing and going very rapidly from bad to worse. What is the linkage and advice mechanism between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its assessment of things and the Home Office, which approves the decision to send certain individuals back? It seems that this is an area where joined-up government just has not happened, one where others perhaps less deserving are allowed to stay while people who are clearly from a very dangerous country are sent back. One is left to conclude that that is a double failure, something I know that governments dread—the point at which two policies that are not going well collide.
	Is not the whole government system of control in these areas, which is meant to be fair, in fact unfair and a failure? Today's Statement indicates that no one at risk will be removed, but it is clear that people at risk have been and are being removed. It indicates also, by way of implication of the broader policy, that anyone not at risk will be removed. But clearly that is not so either. People whose position is very doubtful remain here. That is the first awkward area, and the Government are clearly struggling with it.
	The second area relates to Zimbabwe itself. The policy of quiet diplomacy has not worked. We are the first to realise that it is easy to stand here and say that but also to realise that words are not enough. We are asking for the sanctions to be much tougher than they are and for the assets of those who are bankrolling the Mugabe terror regime to be frozen, much more vigorously than is happening at present. The path towards a UN resolution should be tried out. Could we at least publish a sample UN resolution, as we have done in the case of the Darfur horrors?
	Could we not put much more effective pressure on South Africa, with which we have good and friendly dealings in many areas and which has strong ambitions in relation to joining the United Nations? Could we not use leverage on South Africa to face the fact that as Zimbabwe drags Africa down, it will drag South Africa down, and that this is not just a localised horror crisis but will engulf the whole of southern Africa?
	Those two policies do not seem to be working very well. We need to know that there will be a much more effective grip on issues of immigration and Zimbabwean foreign policy so that we can at least be reassured that things will not get even worse than they are already.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. The first thing we need to do is to halt the deportation of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers; recent events have clearly demonstrated that their lives would be in danger if they were returned.
	I can well understand the Government's dilemma, but it is not a question of individual decisions affecting individual applicants for asylum. It is the situation that prevails in Zimbabwe and the pictures that we see repeatedly on television of what happens to the population there. Law and order have deteriorated to such an extent that there is no respect for the rights and liberties of individuals, let alone those who may be returned from the United Kingdom. We are not asking for a permanent halt to deportation. We are simply asking that until such time as the situation improves, these people should be allowed to stay in this country.
	Today's Daily Mail contains an article by Matthew Hickley. He estimates that more than 15,000 Zimbabweans fled to Britain in the four years to 2004 and only a few have been granted asylum.
	The plight of the poor, hungry and homeless cannot be underestimated. It is estimated that more than a quarter of a million citizens, including children and pregnant women, have been made homeless in recent weeks. The "Drive Out Trash" operation has involved soldiers and police in bulldozing entire suburbs in a crackdown on opposition supporters.
	How many applications from asylum seekers from Zimbabwe are pending? How many applications have been successful and how many rejected? What assurance can the Government give regarding those likely to be deported to ensure that they will come to no harm if returned to Zimbabwe? Are the Government aware that dozens of Zimbabweans forcibly sent home from Britain in recent months have promptly been arrested by the president's secret police on their return and have disappeared without trace? How many asylum seekers from Zimbabwe are in detention at present?
	I am glad that the United Nations is taking an interest, visiting Harare to see the devastation that has taken place. My right honourable friend Menzies Campbell was right when he said that it was entirely inconsistent for Jack Straw to condemn Zimbabwe's government so strongly when the Home Office was insisting that the country was safe for failed asylum seekers.
	I find it difficult to accept the statement attributed to the immigration Minister, Tony McNulty, that there were no substantial reports of abuse of anyone deported to Zimbabwe since last November. How did he reach that judgment? The UK no longer has a link with Zimbabwe. Foreign journalists and BBC reporters are not welcome there. It would be useful to know the source of Mr McNulty's information. The task for the Government, bent on maintaining deportation targets, cannot be an easy one. We require compassion and the discretion already available in the immigration Acts to ensure that these should override all other consideration aimed at asylum seekers from Zimbabwe. Anything less would be a serious blot on our country, which has always extended a hand to victims of torture and persecution.
	I conclude by mentioning a visit that my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby and I made to an event organised by the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group last week. I am told that there are at least 40 Zimbabweans detainees in Gatwick. We are trying to establish how many have spoken against the Mugabe regime in the past. Will the Minister give an undertaking that they will not be deported until normality is established in Zimbabwe and that proper representation has been made on their behalf by the parliamentarians? Will she also ensure that the in-country reports which are being considered by the immigration adjudication authorities are available to Members of Parliament to see how they interpret the situation in Zimbabwe?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I assure both noble Lords how strongly the Government condemn what is currently happening in Zimbabwe. Noble Lords raised the issue with us forcefully and I can tell them that we currently have 134 Zimbabweans in detention and, as I mentioned in the Statement, 57 of those are currently in the difficulty that I explained. We have made every effort to ensure that the system that is in place is robust and fair and can make the proper distinction between those who merit our protection and care and those who, for whatever reason, fall outwith that system. My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for asylum and immigration said on 24 June:
	"Since returns were resumed to Zimbabwe last November, we have received no substantiated reports of abuse of any person returned to the country. We do, however, continue to keep the situation under review and will investigate any allegations of mistreatment of returnees".
	Some information that I received today suggested that five individuals may have been treated badly on return. Attempts were made to contact all five and four of those so identified were contacted. Of those, none maintained that they had been persecuted in the way that was alleged although two of those individuals indicated that they had had to pay a bribe in relation to the airport. However, there is no substantiated information at the moment that what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, described as a wholesale persecution is taking place. But we take these issues are very seriously indeed.
	I would also like to reassure noble Lords that there is no difference between the departments in our assessment of conditions in Zimbabwe. It is clear to both departments—indeed to the whole Government—that the conditions in Zimbabwe are wholly unacceptable, but the asylum decision making and appeal processes exist to determine the conditions that an individual applicant would face on return to their country of origin and whether that individual is in need of international protection.
	There is no doubt that political persecution, abuses of human rights and denial of basic freedoms persist in Zimbabwe. The asylum system will continue to ensure that Zimbabweans who qualify for asylum will continue to receive the international protection that they need.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked me about the numbers of removals. Between January 2004 and March 2005, 270 Zimbabweans were granted asylum or discretionary leave and 200 were removed from the United Kingdom. In 2004, we made decisions on 2,555 Zimbabwean cases. We granted asylum to 220 of them, discretionary leave to a further 25 and 105 were removed during 2004. In the first quarter of this year, 330 decisions were made on Zimbabwean cases. Twenty Zimbabweans were granted asylum, a further five were given discretionary leave, and 95 were removed. So I can certainly assure noble Lords that the greatest care and attention is given to such matters.
	The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Dholakia, know that the Government have put in real effort and energy in trying to reach an approach in relation to Zimbabwe that will be robust and will change behaviour. Noble Lords will know how difficult that is and will know too that it is of crucial importance to get the concurrence and support of other African states, particularly those in the region, on that matter. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has shown real commitment and drive in that regard, and he and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, are looking at the matter carefully. Both have gripped the issue and will continue to do that which we know needs to be done; that is, to put pressure on Zimbabwe to behave properly, but also to ensure that the individuals, about whom we must be concerned, have a proper determination and assessment of whether they are entitled to asylum—which, if they are, they must have. It has been our proud duty to give asylum to those who need it and to make decisions properly in favour of those who do not need it, on an individual case-by-case basis.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of my noble friend, but would it not be infinitely better, while uncertainty exists, for there to be a moratorium? After all, we are not detaining a large number of people. A moratorium on asylum seekers is justified, as long as there are doubts about the bona fides of Mugabe. Would my noble friend not agree that we cannot take a chance with regard to people like this? There is a great deal of disquiet in this regard, which is not confined to the Conservative or Liberal Democrat Benches.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear that I absolutely understand the anger—almost disgust—that is felt about what has happened to a number of individuals in Zimbabwe and that the Government share it. Noble Lords will know that the reason why we imposed the moratorium that was lifted in November was that we believed that it was justified and that at that time it was not appropriate or proper to return. We have continued to examine the information with the greatest care, and I assure noble Lords that the matter will continue to concentrate the minds of all those responsible for developing policy in this area. But the decision that my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, have taken is that at the moment the individual case-by-case approach is the more appropriate. Noble Lords will know that, because assessments will continue, that may change, but, at the moment, that is the decision to which the Government have come.

The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, I accept what the Minister says about the care and attention given to individual cases. I can see the argument there, but the concern in the mind of many noble Lords is over the level of general persecution in Zimbabwe at the moment. The reports today of people being driven into rural areas without food or medical attention and the estimates that the death rate is exceeding the birth rate by 4,000 a week must raise serious concerns about the general situation to which people are being returned. I should have thought that, in that light, we would want serious caution to be exercised at this time over the return of anybody into that situation.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the right reverend Prelate that serious consideration is given to the general conditions. As he will know, however, those conditions must then apply to the individual case and the question has to be asked, "In this individual's case, can he or can he not be safely returned?". There are those who can safely be returned, and it is right that, in those cases, that should happen. However, there are also those—such as members of the opposition party in Zimbabwe and others—for whom a return would clearly be difficult and taxing. Those are the issues that we shall continue to determine individually.
	The Home Office is in close dialogue with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on country reports, and we exchange information on conditions in the country on a very regular and close basis. It is clear to all that conditions in Zimbabwe are unacceptable; I do not in any way seek to undermine what has been said about that. However, asylum decision-making processes and appeal processes exist to determine whether it is appropriate to return in an individual case.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dholakia, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the right reverend Prelate have expressed their feelings in an extremely mild, controlled and rational way, and I congratulate them on that. I have stronger feelings about it than they have expressed, though they share those strong feelings. I ask the noble Baroness to consider two matters.
	First, this morning, I established that among those on hunger strike at the removal centre of which my noble friend Lord Dholakia and I are co-patrons are a number who have been actively engaged in opposition to the Government of Zimbabwe and who are among those due to be removed. I should be happy to give the noble Baroness their names. However, I am not satisfied with treating it simply as an issue of individuals.
	Secondly, only last week, I was teaching at Harvard a course called Leaders in Development which consisted of young men and women who are supposed to be high flyers likely to take over leadership in their countries, which range from South Africa to Kenya to Egypt. Most of them are African. They were very welcoming of the United Kingdom's becoming chairman of the Africa Commission and making Africa a high priority for the G8 and EU presidencies. If the message goes out to those African young men and women, committed to democracy, that the country that, they thought, they admired is returning scores of Zimbabweans to what the Minister herself described as utterly unacceptable conditions, what message will it send to other countries in Africa? What message does it send about our commitment to and belief in democracy? What message does it send about the values and principles that we are supposed to share with those in Zimbabwe who are due to suffer for supporting the principles that we in this Parliament have said time and again that we believe in?
	I must beg the Government to think again. I must beg members of the party opposite to think again. I for one would be ashamed to be a member of a country that took part in an act of this kind, when it would be perfectly possible to continue to suspend deportations until such time as Zimbabwe satisfies us all that it is becoming a reasonable, civilised and democratic state.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely understand the noble Baroness's passion. I do not have the specific details on the 40 people whom she and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, saw at Gatwick; I can assume only that they have not yet made their application and been processed. I can only reassure her that, to date, very careful consideration has been given to the cases of all those who have participated in opposition activity in Zimbabwe. I cannot say what the determination will be; I can only give an assurance regarding what has historically been viewed as extremely important.
	The noble Baroness can tell those who ask that question that this country—I say this with a degree of modesty—almost more than any other has raised its voice about what is happening in Zimbabwe. The noble Baroness will know that on occasion we have been vilified for so doing. However, we shall continue to do that. The efforts made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary continue this very day. I note that it is 20 past four; if I were not on my feet in the Chamber I might have had something to tell your Lordships. I do not know what position we shall be in. I certainly reassure the noble Baroness that this country will continue to raise its voice very loudly as regards democracy and stability and what is happening.
	As regards the asylum process it is absolutely important that while the issues are in flux we continue to concentrate on individuals to ensure that each individual has their case properly looked at and is given the succour that they need, if they merit it. I argue strongly that the system that we have is fair and has ensured that a number of people are well protected.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I accept fully my noble friend's assurances that every care is taken in examining individual cases and that some Zimbabweans will try to beat the system, but has my noble friend heard the statement attributed to President Mugabe that Britain is training spies, returning them as failed asylum seekers to be saboteurs in Zimbabwe, and that they will be dealt with? As that paranoiac regime and the minions who carry out President Mugabe's paranoiac activities continue, would it not be sensible to suspend deportations so long as Mugabe remains in being?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I hear what my noble friend says. I can only reiterate what I have said on a number of occasions: we shall continue to look at the issue. However, we cannot control what Mr Mugabe does or does not say and we cannot control whether there is or is not truth in it. All that we can do is to look at the evidence, continue to assess the situation and make the best judgments that we can. The judgment as of today is that it would not be appropriate to raise the moratorium at this point. As I have reiterated on a number of occasions, that is very much something that will be kept under constant review.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, the Home Office Minister has said that there are no substantiated reports of ill treatment of individuals who have been removed to Zimbabwe. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could tell us what constitutes a substantiated report.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, we were given the names of five individuals. Those five individuals were contacted. Four of them responded and were spoken to. The fifth was asked to come to a meeting but for whatever reason did not attend. That is the extent of the substantiation that we have had. We have spoken to the five individuals, who verified that they had not been subject to persecution.
	We will of course take up as many issues as noble Lords or other agencies bring to our attention and deal with them as effectively as we can. However, we have to make our judgments on the evidence that we have and on the information that we determine to be sound. I can put before your Lordships only the information that we have to date.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, those of us who think that the present Home Office has a track record of illiberality of which it should be sincerely ashamed but unfortunately is not would like to know about the following matters. First, the noble Baroness said that no harm had come to people who had been sent back. What about the lady who attempted to commit suicide by jumping out of her flat and broke her back? What about the fact that the situation has become infinitely worse over the past week or two, with the dreadful bulldozing and clearing of people from Bulawayo? If the Government are so keen to do something about the matter, why did they do absolutely nothing about it at the last European Council meeting, when the noble Baroness said that they were doing everything that they could? It seems to me that they could at least have discussed the matter, even if that in itself might not necessarily have achieved much.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: First, my Lords, it would be impossible for me to say that no harm had come to any individual. All I can say is that we have no evidence to support any harm having taken place. Also, in relation to the efforts of this Government, noble Lords know only too well the energy that this Government have put into issues concerning Africa. Of course one does not want to go back over records, but since 1997 this Government have a proud record in supporting and facilitating democracy, freedom and liberty on the African continent.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I declare an interest, as for some eight years until the mid-1990s I was the director of the Refugee Council. While I was there, we were often desperately concerned that individuals were sent back by the then government of Britain. We attempted to follow up what had happened to them, and unfortunately in quite a number of instances they disappeared without trace. I am not talking about Zimbabwe—I am talking about other African countries where there was also a high level of repression and abuse of human rights at the time.
	I know that my noble friend is in enormous difficulties in defending the position that she has to defend this afternoon. I understand that individual claims for asylum must be decided on an individual basis, but I put it to her that there are no satisfactory means of establishing whether people who have been returned are safe. My noble friend quoted five instances; but from the figures that she mentioned earlier a much larger number than that have been returned. My fear is that without proper media there and without the Government there—I am not sure whether UNHCR is there monitoring this—that people are being sent back into danger to face persecution, imprisonment, torture, and possibly death. That is not good enough.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, again, of course I understand what my noble friend says. We have received uncorroborated reports that a small number of failed asylum seekers may have been mistreated. There is no corroborating evidence about that. As noble Lords know, we do not routinely monitor the treatment of returnees to any country. We would not remove them if we considered that they were likely to suffer persecution on their return. However, as I have made plain on a number of occasions, we will investigate any reports of ill-treatment that are brought to our attention.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, in what way were those five in Zimbabwe contacted? Will she comment on the fifth case who did not respond? Given that the British Government have no representation in Zimbabwe, as has been pointed out before, were they contacted by telephone? Were those telephones tapped? Were those people free to say what had actually happened to them? Will she comment in more detail on those cases?
	Given that a large proportion of the asylum cases that were originally rejected are then overturned on appeal, how can we have confidence in what the Home Office is doing on an individual basis? That is especially so as one of the cases that came to public attention this week was of a known member of the opposition party. How come that person was turned down in the first place?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, one of the beauties of us having a democracy is that we have independent courts that make independent decisions; they hear evidence and determine on it. This country cannot by executive decision decide the outcome of any individual case. Of course I cannot say what evidence went before the tribunal; and I cannot say the basis of the appeal. I can say that the system provides for proper representations and proper opportunities for cases to be determined, and then for an independent judgment at the end of the day by the court on the outcome, with a proper position in relation to appeal. That is a robust, democratic system.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, are the Government really saying that the five individual cases that they have heard about, through some means that we are uncertain of, provide the Home Office with a sufficient evidential base to justify the policy, particularly against the background of the paranoia and savagery of that revolting regime?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the base is not in relation to those five cases. I told your Lordships about those because that is the information that we have had, and that is the research that we have done. We rely on the integrity of the system now in place, which allows the acuity that we think necessary for the determination to be made in each individual case on whether a return is in compliance with ECHR and the 1951 convention.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I must apologise for having not been present during the Statement. Does the Minister accept that a record of having been a member of the opposition in Zimbabwe is not, by any means, the main reason why someone might run into difficulties on return? In the present state of Mugabe's paranoia, particularly about the role of this country and the spies about whom he keeps talking, surely anyone deported to Zimbabwe against their will is liable to be treated with extreme suspicion, if not worse.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot comment on whether people would be treated with extreme suspicion; I certainly see that it may be the case. The problem is not that they are treated with extreme suspicion, but how they will be treated in terms of their freedoms and liberties and whether they fall within the categorisation that we have. That is a different matter. Those are issues on which we have evidence and, as I have said on a number of occasions, that have to be determined by the court.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, for countries where there has been known evidence of repressive regimes, have we not been able to give people asylum simply because the regime to which they were to be sent back was too bad to allow any confidence in their safety? I am thinking of the days of the communist regimes, for example.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is why I talked particularly in relation to Zimbabwe. It was precisely why, before November last year, the decision about the raise was made. I think that I have now said about 15 times—maybe more; Hansard will determine it—that the issue will be kept under constant review. For all the reasons that I have given already, the decision—it has been made on the evidence currently before the Government—is that a moratorium is not currently justified. However, my right honourable friends will continue to deliberate on that and come to a decision.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 1.

Baroness Thornton: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 9, at end insert ", with particular regard to schemes aimed to reduce child casualties in areas of high deprivation"

Baroness Thornton: My noble friend will recognise that the amendment may not be in quite the right place in the Bill. However, when examining this piece of legislation, which contains many good things, I was struck by the lack of explicit attention given to improving road safety for child pedestrians and cyclists. I therefore thought it might be useful to have, at this early stage in Committee, a discussion about that lack.
	Overall, it must be said that we have a good road safety record in this country, but that is overshadowed by our poor record on child pedestrian safety. The latest figures show that 2,381 child pedestrians were killed or seriously injured on our roads in 2003, with more than 10,000 child pedestrians injured. That is not a record of which any of us could be proud, and compares unfavourably with many other European countries. We also have a high number of child cyclist accidents on our roads. In 2003, 595 children on bicycles were killed or seriously injured on the roads.
	Furthermore, research shows that there is a strong correlation between deprivation and the number of child road casualties. That was referred to by my noble friend Lord Simon earlier. Children from the lowest social class are five times more likely to die in road accidents than those from the highest social class. The research also highlighted that child pedestrians in the most deprived areas were more at risk, with more than a quarter of child pedestrian casualties occurring in the most deprived 10 per cent of wards. Anyone would agree that that was not acceptable.
	I remember a speech made by the Prime Minister in March 2000, in which he outlined the Government's road safety strategy. He rightly pointed out the need to reduce the number of child pedestrian casualties and to do more to target those children who live in deprived areas. The amendment, which has the support of a coalition of over 75 children's organisations—and NCH, the children's charity, and the End Child Poverty campaign—aims to do that by targeting resources to schemes that aim to reduce child road accidents in areas of high deprivation. Of course, this is only part of a package of measures that is needed—but is very important. I am pleased that other amendments, such as imposing a 20 mph speed limit for restricted roads, have been tabled.
	I am pleased that the Government have put in place an ambitious target to reduce the number of children who are killed or seriously injured. But, if we are to achieve those targets, special attention needs to be given to reducing child pedestrian and cyclist casualties in highly deprived areas, otherwise we shall not reach the targets that we have set. As ever, words and targets alone are not sufficient. Action and funding are required.
	The amendment sends a clear message: that reducing child road casualties should be a priority for the Government and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the points that I have raised. I beg to move.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I rise briefly to support the amendment. As my noble friend said, and as my noble friend Viscount Simon said in the debate on the previous group of amendments, there is an increased likelihood of fatalities in areas of high deprivation. This seems a sensible amendment and I hope that the Minister will look at it favourably.

Lord Bradshaw: I think that I support the amendment. In fact, the best ways to reduce child casualties are through such initiatives as the Better Ways to School campaign. But, the competition in our county for money for those schemes is fierce—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, knows that. I received a copy of a letter from a head teacher of a local school, which said that a little bit of money was available and that she had seven days in which to submit a scheme. Her area is deprived and many children walk to school along busy roads. I know, as do the county council, of a number of measures that could well be taken to make the way safe.
	We return to the question that we raised at the beginning—it is a matter of resources. The reason that children in the higher social categories are not killed is that most of them do not walk or cycle along roads—they are conveyed in various types of vehicle, to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, frequently refers. They are not exposed to danger. They are inside safe vehicles.
	It is also necessary that after school such children are looked after, because the children to whom the noble Baroness referred are those who often go home to an empty house and need to be cared for. That means that people have to pay for it, certainly in my local authority area—there is no local authority funding for after school clubs. We shall return to the question of how we fund the areas to which the noble Baroness referred and I hope that she will support us when we divide the House over the need for more money to be spent on road safety, because I am at one with her. These people's lives can be saved, but it takes money.

Lord Hanningfield: I support the amendment in principle but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, it is a question of resources. It is also a matter of localism. Every school and area has a different solution. We cannot sit here and debate, and have a national scheme. It is up to local people to work out what the scheme should be in their area to benefit its children. Knowing my county as well as I do, I know that there are different solutions all over it. There is no magic solution for one area.
	Furthermore, with the development of extended schools that will support families as well as children there will, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, be many more pre-school classes, breakfast classes and classes in the evening. There will also be more training. What happens now in deprived areas is that families do not give their children the training on using the roads that they ought to have. That solution needs to be sorted out in school as well. But that is what localism is about. The Government have spoken about localism a lot; I am trying to practise it in my area. We do not have central schemes or central initiatives. Local initiatives are needed to solve these problems, but with money, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said. I am certain that they can be sorted out with some resources. I support the amendment in principle and will look at it as we go on through the Bill.

Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton. It is moving towards the questions that came up in the debates we had during the previous Parliament on the School Transport Bill, which did not get through. Last week, I participated in a debate with some local authority people about the problems of school transport.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is quite right. In less deprived areas people bring their little children to school in large Chelsea tractors, as I call them, and there is no problem. But those people are usually very vociferous in asking for whatever money there is for road safety improvements, school improvements or whatever. It is not just that fewer children go to school by car in areas of high deprivation and more of them walk, but that there is less likely to be restrictions on speeds and access for cars and I hope we will discuss those matters later in this Committee. Everything conspires against schools in deprived areas getting the facilities and safety features on the roads that are necessary to reduce the terribly high level of child casualties. I support my noble friend's amendment and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I welcome the debate that we have just had because my noble friend's amendment has given rise to an opportunity to highlight a key road safety priority for the Government. We are aware that in international comparisons we do well over a range of comparators, but child deaths is not one of them. Our record is not good. The problem has been identified for a number of years and it is important that we address ourselves to the issue.
	If I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment, which I shall certainly do, it is not because in any way, shape or form I shall make any contribution that detracts from the value of her remarks and those of other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. All the points have been valid. My noble friend indicated that she was not entirely sure that this amendment was located in the right place in the Bill. I shall identify to her why it would be detrimental to the quality of the legislation that we are putting before the House, while recognising the validity of her argument.
	The amendment would prioritise schemes addressing child casualties in deprived areas over other schemes. We recognise the need for prioritisation. The 2002 spending review White Paper strengthened the Government's casualty reduction target,
	"to tackle the significantly higher incidence of road accidents in disadvantaged areas".
	Our aim is to reduce casualties in deprived areas by a greater percentage than in the country as a whole. In April 2003 we published guidance called Tackling the Road Safety Implications of Disadvantage, which, as my noble friend indicated, impacts very significantly on children in disadvantaged areas, but of course on the whole area of disadvantage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that many factors contribute to this situation. Therefore, we need a strategy which deals with the total problem.
	As a result of our guidance, Tackling the Road Safety Implications of Disadvantage, English authorities have been asked to submit a statement as part of the local transport plan annual progress report outlining how they plan to tackle road safety problems in their deprived areas.
	Through the Neighbourhood Road Safety Initiative, the Inner City Road Safety Demonstration Project and Kerbcraft—Child Pedestrian Training, we have allocated over £33 million to local highway authorities. In quoting that figure I may raise that hoary issue of whether we are going to spend the whole of our time on the Bill debating resources. I am seeking to keep on the path of the righteous by concentrating on the structure of the Bill. I merely emphasise that to convince my noble friend and other noble Lords who supported the amendment that this is an important area of concern to the Government.
	All those initiatives are aimed at tackling road safety problems, including child road safety problems in areas of high deprivation. But—and I am afraid there is a "but", and it is on this basis that I hope my noble friend will withdraw her amendment—Clause 1 allows for payments to be made for all road safety initiatives. Depending on who the scheme is aimed at, grants have the potential to improve road safety for children and for disadvantaged groups. While there is a specific focus on disadvantage, in our current grant-funded projects we need—and against a background where we expect our legislation to be valid over a considerable number of years—to ensure that Clause 1 is as flexible as possible so that we can respond to particular road safety issues as they arise.
	So, although it is important—and one recognises that currently this is a key priority for us—it would not be right to establish in stone, or at least in the Bill, a priority which would last against developing events when we might need areas of flexibility and the ability to operate change.
	Therefore, we should not seek in the clause to highlight one particular current road safety issue, we should recognise what the clause does, which is to create the framework for the allocation of resources. However, I would reassure my noble friend, who has spoken with passion, as have other Members of the Committee, about the issue, that it is a key priority, but I ask her not to write the provision on the face of the Bill. I hope she will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Thornton: I start by thanking noble Lords for their support and for their informed remarks in support of the amendment. Before the Minister's remarks I thought that this modest amendment might not be in the right place, but as I listened to him talking about priorities I wondered whether it is in the right place if we want to set priorities about what the Bill aims to do. In a way, the test against which this Bill needs to be measured is the impact it will have on, particularly, children and children in deprived areas.
	I thank my noble friend for his remarks and, indeed, for reassuring us that the issue is a priority for the Government. I shall read his remarks with care. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 6:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY ACCREDITATION SCHEMES
	(1) The Secretary of State may, if he considers it appropriate to do so for the purpose specified in subsection (3), establish and maintain a scheme ("a national road safety accreditation scheme").
	(2) A national road safety accreditation scheme is a scheme for the exercise nationally by persons accredited by him under section (Accreditation under national road safety accreditation schemes) of the powers conferred by their accreditation under that section.
	(3) The purpose of a national road safety accreditation scheme is to contribute to national road safety by ensuring compliance with the Goods Vehicles Licensing of Operators Act 1995 (c. 23) and section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (regulation of construction, weight, equipment and use of vehicles).
	(4) Before establishing a national road safety accreditation scheme the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he thinks fit."

Earl Attlee: It may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 21. I remind the Committee of my interest listed at col. 915 on 8 June at Second Reading.
	VOSA, the Vehicle and Operators Services Agency, formerly the Vehicle Inspectorate, has the power to stop the vehicle on the road for the purposes of a test. That power derives from the Police Reform Act 2002. Section 41 provides for accreditation under the community safety accreditation scheme. Those are normally local schemes with local employees accredited by local police. VOSA inspectors operate on a much wider area, even in a region or across regional boundaries. For instance, a VOSA vehicle inspector operating out of Reading, west of London, will need to be accredited by the Metropolitan Police, the Hertfordshire Police, the Thames Valley Police and the Surrey Police merely to look after the western half of the M25. That is not efficient use of scarce resources of either VOSA or the police.
	Those VOSA employees are either employees of the Secretary of State or of his agent. The powers that they enjoy are much tougher because they can already prohibit the vehicle moving if it has a defect under powers in the Road Traffic Acts. Having to accredit each VOSA inspector with many police forces is both unnecessary and bureaucratic. Also, police forces do not like doing it because they can add nothing to the process. My amendment would allow the Secretary of State to accredit those officials instead of the police. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the amendments made by the Police Reform Act 2002. In Northern Ireland, VOSA inspectors have always—or for many years—been able to stop vehicles. It was adjudged too dangerous for police to do so, because it set them as up as targets for terrorists. The VOSA inspectors did the necessary stopping.
	I simply add that while the powers of the VOSA inspectors are being considered, the Minister should also examine what other things they might do. At the multi-agency checks that take place around the country, which I have attended, Customs and Excise inspectors dip the tanks of vehicles to see whether they are running on red diesel; inspectors check on the welfare of animals being transported; trading standards officers—formerly weights and measures inspectors—check the vehicles to see whether they are correctly weighed and the load is properly distributed; and people working for the Department for Work and Pensions—as I think it is now—check whether drivers have paid their national insurance and are bona fide employees.
	In fact, you have to assemble an army of people—now not the police, fortunately—comprising Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all to check whether a lorry driver is working legitimately. It is worth considering not only whether VOSA inspectors should stop people, but whether they should make all the necessary checks instead of assembling various other individuals each to do a little job. One person could carry out the whole inspection effectively if it were not for the bureaucrat divisions between the departments involved. Will the Minister consider that when he replies?

Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment. The net result of what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, outlined, is that there are probably very few inspections when there should be many more because of the complexity of getting accreditation. When driving around the country, one is aware of a lack of checks. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, may have missed out compliance with the Working Time Directive, but he gave us a pretty good list, which, again, is enough to put anybody off organising such checks.
	I repeat what we have said many times in this House over the years: such drivers are supposed to drive legally; there must be enforcement and they must be checked out. The amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, are a very good start, but I support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that all the other agencies that he mentioned should be included.
	A similar thing happens on the railways. When the Channel Tunnel was built, an enormous building had to be constructed at the rail freight terminal in Willesden, not just for immigration—immigrants were supposed to be checked further on—but also for Customs. In those days, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had to carry out a phyto-sanitary check there. The building, which is half as long as your Lordships' House, not just the Chamber, was fitted out at the taxpayers' expense but has not been used in the past 12 years. Such agencies require all those buildings when changes occur but checks are never made. If they spent less time requiring bricks and mortar and more time working out how to get out on to the roads to check people, the roads would be a much safer environment.

Viscount Simon: I have been out on traffic patrol with the police on numerous occasions specifically to inspect large vehicles, and the police are highly trained in that respect. However, I suspect that the number of qualified vehicle examiners is decreasing rapidly and that they do not have the time or make the effort to do such work. I therefore support the amendment.

Lord Bridges: I wish to approach the question from a different angle: the problem of securing road safety in rural areas such as the one in which I live. I am conscious that most of our roads are class C, originally for horse-drawn traffic, I suppose, and are now used extensively by large delivery vehicles. Somebody living in the area who wishes to buy a new refrigerator may find that it comes in an enormous vehicle that has travelled for 50 miles.
	As a member of a Select Committee of this House examining proposals from Brussels about the maximum weight of heavy vehicles, I suggested to a representative from the Department for Transport that we should have maximum weights and dimensions for class-C small roads. The official replied, "Oh, it is quite impossible because that is the task of a local authority. There are no national schemes for minor roads".
	That must be examined, in the interests of road safety. Why should we not have a conference of all local authorities to agree a national scheme for the maximum dimension and weight of minor roads? In that way we could greatly reduce the number of accidents, which occur quite regularly on minor roads. Enormous juggernauts come sweeping around such roads, and if you wish to stay alive you have to drive into the hedge, which may not always be sufficient to protect you. There is a problem here which ought to be considered in this context.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The problem is that almost anything can be taken into account in the context of inspection. I accept entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that safety in rural areas is important—there will be several occasions during the passage of the Bill when we shall have extensive debates on the issue—but, of course, the amendments are concerned with the exercise of inspection and roadworthiness and therefore are not specific to any particular part of the country or any particular environment. However, I bear very much in mind the comments made by the noble Lord.
	I ask the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to withdraw his amendment and not to move the others. I cannot accept any of them in their entirety, but I congratulate him on putting forward some extremely useful concepts, which have been reinforced by other contributions in the Committee. I assure him that we are involved in discussions on those very issues in which my department will wish to take into account of the debate today.
	The discussions will involve the Scottish Executive and, as the noble Earl will recognise, inevitably the Home Office because of the legal aspects involved. The debate has advanced the cause. Had the noble Earl included Amendment No. 9 in it, I would not have been in such a benign mood. He will find out when he moves it that I have more difficulty with Amendment No. 9.
	The concepts behind Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 21 have some merit, and we want to take them on board in our discussions. I assure the noble Earl that that will be done. He is an exceedingly reasonable man, and I know that he will accept this gesture of goodwill on my part and that it will be sufficient for him not to press his amendments too vigorously. I would not want to go in for a minute, detailed dismantling job on the amendments, posing as a critic of the noble Earl when, in moving the amendment, he has done the Committee a service. I hope that that gesture of good faith illustrates that we appreciate a number of the points that he has made, which have been reinforced by other contributors to the debate. We are involved in consultation, we need to make progress, and we recognise that the present situation is not satisfactory. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly that of the Minister.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that multi-agency checks required many different experts. That is of course the point—they are experts. I may have knowledge about vehicle safety, but I am not an expert on animal welfare.
	I would not support too many agencies having the power to stop a vehicle on the road. There was always a risk attached to giving VOSA the powers to stop a vehicle on the road, but its vehicles have a distinct livery and commercial vehicle drivers can recognise a VOSA vehicle. If many different agencies were able to stop a goods vehicle that may be carrying a high-value load on the road, we could increase the difficulties associated with hijacking exponentially.
	Multi-agency checks are a valuable tool of enforcement. They are an addition to the activities of VOSA in pulling over a vehicle on the road. We must not lose sight of the efficiency of multi-agency checks. Often, when one problem is found with a vehicle or with a driver, there tend to be many more.
	I am grateful to the Minister for his kind response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 9:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"ACCREDITATION FOR PURPOSES OF ESCORTING LOADS OF EXCEPTIONAL DIMENSIONS
	After section 41 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 30) (accreditation under Community Safety accreditation schemes) insert—
	"41A ACCREDITATION FOR PURPOSES OF ESCORTING LOADS OF EXCEPTIONAL DIMENSIONS
	(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it would be beneficial to ordinary road users for certain members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces to be accredited persons for controlling traffic for the purposes of escorting a load of exceptional dimensions.
	(2) The Secretary of State may grant a general accreditation to any person who meets the requirements of subsection (4) below.
	(3) Paragraph 9 of Schedule 5. Power to control traffic for purposes of escorting a load of exceptional dimensions shall have effect to persons accredited under this section.
	(4) The requirements to be met before the Secretary of State grants accreditation are—
	(a) that the person is a member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces and is otherwise a suitable person to exercise the powers that will be conferred upon him by virtue of the accreditation;
	(b) that the person is capable of effectively carrying out the functions for the purposes of which those powers are to be conferred on him; and
	(c) that the person has a military trade qualification of either—
	(i) a military policeman, or
	(ii) a driver of abnormal load carrying vehicle, and
	is specially trained and qualified to exercise the powers specified in paragraph 9 of Schedule 5.""

Earl Attlee: With some trepidation, I move Amendment No. 9. I remind the Committee that I am a serving TA officer involved in logistics. The amendment also relates to accreditation under Section 41 of the Police Reform Act 2002. Schedule 5(9) to the Act allows accredited persons to give directions to traffic to facilitate the efficient movement of abnormal loads. I understand that no police force has accredited anyone under paragraph 9 for those purposes, which may have something to do with the way in which the provisions were included in the Police Reform Act.
	The same problem of accreditation applies to military personnel as applies to VOSA officials with regard to the need to accredit with every police force. Service personnel who want to escort an abnormal load and use the powers of an accredited person will also have to be accredited with all 40 or so police forces. The reality is that military personnel already stop ordinary traffic and motorists, who would expect the military to have that power. Of course, we know well that they do not. So the reality is no change.
	The key part of my amendment is Section 41C, which states that the person must be either a military policeman, who obviously is trained to stop vehicles, or the driver of a heavy equipment—abnormal load—transporter. In both cases, he must be specially trained and qualified. That would provide a better quality control system than would be available from civilian industry. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: As I indicated, I was a little less happy with this amendment on what I hope will be recognised by the noble Earl as quite significant grounds. The amendment would, in the main, duplicate provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 that already provide for accredited persons to be designated with the powers of a police constable to control traffic for the purpose of escorting loads of exceptional dimensions.
	There is a certain superfluity about the amendment, but my first real objection is that it would move operational decisions on the suitability of persons to be conferred with police powers from where, I think the House will agree, they are best made; namely, at chief constable level. They would be transferred to the Secretary of State, which is not a wise course of action.
	The second problem with the amendment is that it would go far beyond its apparent purposes. I hear what the noble Earl says: members of the public are used on occasions to having defence police direct traffic when a particularly heavy load is being conveyed by Ministry of Defence personnel, which happens rarely. However, I am not sure that the citizens of this country would take too kindly to fixed penalty notices being issued by a Ministry of Defence officer or that alcohol or tobacco should be confiscated by him or her. The noble Earl's amendment would confer those powers on such officers.
	I know that that is not the noble Earl's intent or, let us say, his interpretation of that intent, which is wholly benign, but it would have that effect, and the Committee will recognise that that is a cause for severe reservation about the amendment. The noble Earl made considerable progress with his earlier amendments, and we want to work on those ideas. However, this is a bad idea, and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Earl Attlee: I never have bad ideas; I have interesting ones. Can the Minister first explain why, since the Police Reform Act was passed in 2002, no one has been accredited for the purposes of paragraph 9 of Schedule 5? No one has become an accredited person for escorting abnormal loads. The police are simply not taking part. Secondly, my amendment refers to paragraph 9 of Schedule 5, which deals with the escorting of abnormal loads. I suspect that that slipped into the Minister's notes because I have tidied up my amendment. The original version may have had that defect, but I took advice from the Clerks, and my amendment is now perfect.
	I thank the Minister for his response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 [Graduated fixed penalty points]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) the time of day it was committed,"

Lord Hanningfield: Clause 2 amends Section 53 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to enable the Secretary of State to prescribe by order graduated penalties. The amount may vary depending on the circumstances of the offence, which include in particular the nature of the offence; its severity; where it took place; and whether the offender had committed other prescribed offences during a prescribed period. However, the wording of the clause is not restricted, which gives us a chance to question the Government on the thinking behind the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) and to probe further on why certain factors that they believe are sensible have been left out.
	In particular, we are concerned about the use of the phrase, "how serious it is" in paragraph (b) and whether it is sufficiently precise. Who will judge that? How will the judgment be made, and what criteria will apply? I believe that something specific about, say, the number of vulnerable road users and pedestrians in the vicinity at the time would be relevant to assessing the gravity of the offence, as set out in Amendments Nos. 11 and 17. Indeed, our amendments provide some alternative and additional criteria. Amendments Nos. 10 and 16 would add the time of day that an offence is committed because often it is a highly relevant factor. Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 18 and 19 are designed to deal with issues that might arise due to weather conditions.
	We are in effect probing the Government on whether additional factors should be taken into account and whether, as highlighted in Amendment No. 20, the offender in question has an opportunity to put forward any other information or reason why the offence was committed. In short, we are concerned that, as it stands, the clause may be too rigid to deal with the nature of circumstances that may be beyond the powers of the driver.
	The fixed penalty regime has proved convenient for administrators and forces and, on occasion, for the perpetrators of offences. We would all welcome more flexibility in the system. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I strongly support the amendments, although I feel that they do not go far enough. The question of danger to pedestrians is important, but recently I have been approached by many people who have been issued with a fixed penalty notice for driving at 35 miles an hour in what they believed to be a 40 miles-per-hour zone. I stress that I have no personal interest in this, as I am not one of those people.
	That seems terribly wrong. These are people who intend to keep to whatever is the speed limit, but the signing is so bad that the sign indicating 30 mph is barely visible and, in some cases—particularly in my area of Oxfordshire; the Thames Valley police force seems to be the worst in this respect—the authorities seem determined deliberately to catch people by putting up 40 mph notices and following those with a rapid 30 mph limit. Drivers cannot reduce their speed from the higher to the lower one over the distance. I have tabled a Question on this for later in the week.
	I know where the signs are near Lower Heyford. Therefore, I am aware in advance, and I take care. Why do we not have the sort of thing that they have in America, where signs say, "Reduce speed ahead"? We sometimes see those signs on the motorway, but otherwise there are random signs saying "30" and "40", backwards and forwards. In the case that I am quoting, there is an extremely visible "40" sign and one saying "30" that is almost invisible, and people who would not dream of exceeding the speed limit have been receiving fixed penalty notices.
	It is good that we have flexibility on the issue. However, as I understand it, the minimum will be two points on your licence, and the minute you have any points, your insurance premiums go way up, which is unfair to conscientious drivers.
	I believe that the reason for it is simply to raise revenue. That is appalling. This is the Road Safety Bill, and that is what we should be interested in—road safety. My noble friend's amendments would help to improve the safety element. The West Midlands Police said this week—I am saving up this comment to throw at the Minister on Wednesday—said that there was a danger in sudden braking. This is the Road Safety Bill. Why put up signs that mean, if you see them, that you have to brake so swiftly that you create danger for other vehicles?
	Last night, someone phoned me to say that they had just come off the A40. The speed limit goes from 70 to 50, and you have to brake unbelievably hard to slow down in the distance given. Much more needs to be done on this.
	My noble friend said that his greatest concern was what is beyond the power of the driver. That is my concern too. Everything should be done to help the driver comply with the law, and the amendment goes a long way towards that.

Lord Bradshaw: I declare my interest as a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority. In answer to the noble Baroness, I say once again that the Thames Valley Police and members of the safety camera partnership derive no money from the speeding fines. It is an absolute lie, perpetuated by the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and the Daily Mail. By repeating it here, the noble Baroness has done us a great disservice.
	As for the location that the noble Baroness mentioned, I shall make sure that it is checked. However, when you come off a motorway, you frequently come on to a road on which the speed limit is restricted to 30, 40 or 50 mph. You know that, and you should reduce your speed accordingly. If you drive off a motorway at 70 mph right to the edge and slam your brakes on, you are behaving irresponsibly and are the cause of great danger to other people.
	The point that I wanted to raise with the Minister has nothing to do with the Thames Valley Police. I sincerely hope that he will tell us that the Government have no intention of removing the three penalty points given for exceeding the speed limit.
	Speed limits are, for the most part, clearly defined. There is one exception, and we shall come later to an amendment on it. In an area with a 30 mph limit that has street lights, there is at present no need to provide any form of repeater signs. Somebody who is driving through such an area is supposed to know that the 30 mph limit applies throughout, but it can be a long stretch. I believe that a repeater sign in that 30 mph limit area is a good idea, so that people are reminded that they are in a built-up area. But I must stress that, if a driver hits someone at 35 miles per hour, that person has a fairly slim chance of surviving. If a person is hit at 40 miles per hour, their chances of surviving that accident are virtually nil. The responsibility for road safety rests heavily on the driver because it is the driver who is at the control of the vehicle. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that he or she behaves in a safe manner.
	We will go through the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, but I do not see that whether it is day or night, whether it is raining or the sun is shining or whatever, has anything to do with keeping to the speed limit. The speed limit is delineated beside the road in most cases and our road safety depends on people observing speed limits. Many of the people who complain about being caught by speed limits are obviously annoyed, but they have speeded. Somebody else has not done that; they have. You cannot say, "Somebody else went at 35 miles per hour and I am being penalised". You have speeded, you have committed the offence and, for my money, you are the person who should pay the penalty.
	Normal practice in Thames Valley is that if you are travelling at up to 37 mph—it does vary a bit—and have no record, you are offered the opportunity of going on a speed reduction course as an alternative to getting penalty points, but not as an alternative to the fine and you have to pay for the course yourself. That opportunity is offered only once, not repeatedly. However, we have to get across to people, whatever papers they read, whatever they say and whatever gossip they listen to at cocktail parties, that speeding is dangerous. It is the major cause of traffic accidents and deaths.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I feel that I must come back because I am being accused of saying things that should not be aired. First, if the money does not go to the local police, I would like to know where it does go because plenty is collected. Apart from that, the noble Lord has entirely missed the point that I was making—these are people intending to remain within the speed limit and unable to do so because the limits are not clearly signed. In some cases, trees overhang the signs. In my own village, which I will quote again, as you approach an intersection, the speed sign says 30. You drive not much further than from here to the Princes Chamber and the limit goes up to 40, but after the same distance again, it goes back to 30. Why do they bother raising the limit to 40 when you can barely get back down to 30 before that sign appears? It is too short a distance to change the speed limit three times.
	I was also speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about was dual carriageways. They are not usually roads which people run across, but if they did, they would certainly take great care. I am delighted to hear that he is a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority because I shall certainly be having a little word in his ear on a number of subjects which I shall not bother your Lordships with tonight.

Lord Berkeley: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said about speed limits. However, the noble Baroness said that nobody would want to walk across a dual carriageway. There are dual carriageways in towns and urban areas where the only way of getting to the other side is to walk across. Therefore, there need to be speed limits.
	On this business about not being able to slow down when one gets to a lower speed limit, with the greatest respect, if you cannot slow down safely, you are going too fast anyway. You should put your foot on the brake gently. The noble Baroness shakes her head—but it is as if people find it difficult to comply with speed limits. If you do not know what the speed limit is, the safe thing is to reduce your speed to 30 until you see a sign. It is quite simple, and it is actually a lot safer.
	I have to admit that we are getting slightly off the subject of the amendment, but I am worried not only about these amendments but those to Clause 3(2). So many of the issues listed there, and in these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, are to some extent very subjective. The more things that are listed as conditions, the more arguments there will be about whether you should get two, three or four penalty points. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister says in his response, but I personally think that the fewer conditions, the better. If the speed limit says 30, whatever the circumstances, that is the maximum speed at which you go—and if you go over that, it is your own fault.

Lord Davies of Oldham: One of the joys of being a Minister is that if one sits at the Dispatch Box minding one's own business, you can get answers to the most difficult questions from other informed Members. I have been the beneficiary of that this afternoon.
	My noble friend Lord Berkeley, in his last contribution, hit the nail exactly on the head. I agree with him entirely that we have to avoid detail. I understand the principle behind the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, moved so ably, but there is a real problem with putting into the Bill issues of great detail. The problem with what you include is that you throw into high relief that which you leave out. The clause is constructed to maintain a degree of necessary flexibility. That is why my main argument is the one that my noble friend Lord Berkeley put—that we should avoid too much prescriptive detail in these circumstances, because none of us can envisage every conceivable circumstance when a problem might arise, nor can we anticipate every single defence that could be erected. Most magistrates, in my experience, are baffled by the fact that even after 30 years on the Bench they still hear something new every day, because of the extraordinary ingenuity of people when they are confronted with the problem of being arraigned for having broken the law.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, identified another issue. It is one of the great advantages of this House that there is always someone with real interest in a subject, or with talent or position, who is able to answer such questions. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is going to take up the issue with regard to the Thames Valley police and that therefore I can disregard that particular representation.
	As for the rest of the burden of the noble Baroness's remarks about whether the signage is effectively communicated, I certainly agree with the principle that everything should be done to aid compliance. That is obviously so. At times I believe that we over-egg that pudding as well. Quite a number of people who are concerned with our national heritage are greatly disturbed about the number of warning signs, particularly on our urban streets. We may produce such clutter that the message does not get through anyway.
	The noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not answer too many of her points. For one thing, she has the willing co-operation of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. A word in his ear on this occasion was the loudest stage whisper that I have heard for a long time—and he will have taken that on board. In any case, the noble Baroness will have a second bite of the cherry because, as she said, she has tabled a Question for later this week, when we shall return to this particular point.
	I shall concentrate on the main burden of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. The problem is that the moment one starts to get into detail, one is trapped by whether one can effectively produce such a comprehensive list in the Bill, or whether it would create a clause that would make the Bill many times larger than it is now. Even if one did produce such a list, one might not be successful in being wholly comprehensive. In addition, my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to some aspect of subjectivity. There is a real problem when one identifies issues such as meteorological conditions and the presence of a certain number of vulnerable road users. In making such a judgment, how would we translate it into effective legislation? Regardless, in a specific case a magistrate or judge can take all the circumstances into account; that is what they pride themselves on doing. But how can we anticipate all of those factors in legislation? Would we not be guilty of producing such a grandiose generalisation that it would be meaningless and not aid the cause?
	I think that the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is important to recognise that additional factors can have a bearing on the severity of an offence. It is right that we dispense justice on the basis of the decisions in each case. These amendments are a good shot at a very difficult task. I am merely saying that we do think we have the capacity to meet that task with the rigour and accuracy that would make good legislation. I am not discounting the validity of his points on judgments about speeding. I am merely saying that we cannot do it according to amendments to the Bill that try to take into account all the circumstances.
	On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we have had a constructive debate and feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Lord for his answer. As I said at the beginning, these are probing amendments. We very much support the idea of flexibility in the system. Everyone would agree that one commits an offence by breaking the speed limit. However, as in other offences, there are various degrees of offence. We therefore support the Government in trying to introduce variation to the points system.
	As I admitted on Second Reading, I myself have points. However, I gained them by not knowing that I was in a 40 mile per hour limit. I thought that I was on a major road—the A13. Mind you that it did not happen in Essex, where speed limits are clearly sign-posted, but in London. If it had been in Essex there would not have been a problem. I thought that I was in a 40 mile per hour limit, and I was doing 38. That is why I have points. As my noble friend Lady Gardner said, it is incumbent on authorities to have the right signage and the signs need to be clear and understandable by the motorist.
	In tabling the amendments I was trying to get the Government's feeling on the issue. I note what the Minister said. I agree that the matter should not be prescribed in such detail. We shall see look in Hansard to see what he said. It is a difficult issue and we do not want to be over-prescriptive. However, we want to ensure that the Bill contains the right words. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Graduated fixed penalty points]:

Lord Tordoff: Before calling Amendment No. 15, I should inform the Committee that, were it to be carried, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 16 to 20.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 15:
	Page 2, line 28, leave out from "as" to end of line 41 and insert "set out in Schedule (Graduated penalties)"

Lord Hanningfield: This amendment deals with the same topic and we undoubtedly will have a similar debate. It seeks to shine further light on how the system might work.
	Amendment No. 15 introduces a new schedule that would specify in the Bill the graduated penalties that would apply to speeding. I stress at the outset that I have tabled the amendments not necessarily because I believe in these figures, as I said, but to take forward our previous debate. Neither would I say that the penalties specified are correct. However, the amendments will allow us to debate further the issue of where we should set the penalties.
	As it stands, we will learn later, in secondary legislation, how the graduated penalty system will apply. As everyone knows, I am not a fan of such legislation—which is why I believe we should debate the issue today. I agree that the subject is entirely controversial. As we have heard, there are many different and sincerely held views on it. However, we have a chance with this primary legislation to discuss the issue and what the Bill should provide—what we as parliamentarians collectively think are the right answers about graduated penalties.
	My view, subject to any arguments put forward by the Committee, is that the Government have started on the right lines. However, by tabling this schedule and these amendments I wanted to start a debate on graduated penalties and seek the Committee's agreement, after proper discussion, that it is desirable to include such penalties in the Bill rather than deferring the matter to some point in the future when we have the secondary legislation.
	I think that flexibility is the key to a successful system. There is an admission of the need for flexibility, as we have discussed. Regardless of whether that is achieved by order or through this amendment as well as graded penalty points, I should welcome an approach that indicated that there will be a clear difference between an offence that attracts six penalty points and one that attracts two points. That is what I am trying to get out of this debate. I should like to establish what should attract six penalty points and what should attract two.
	I should welcome any further information that the Minister can give us about where each limit will be set and what fine it will attract. The amendment deals with an interesting and important issue. I hope that the Minister can inform us of the Government's current thinking on it. I beg to move.

The Earl of Dundee: As my noble friend suggests, no doubt it would be helpful to have the table of speeding penalties, as eventually agreed, included on the face of the Bill. However, I would strongly oppose that the particular table presented in the amendment should be the one adopted for that purpose. The proposed table would introduce a lower penalty for speeding at up to 39 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour area, and that would send the wrong message on safety to drivers in built-up areas. I shall seek to argue that point in a later amendment on speed limits.

Earl Attlee: My noble friend has just made the speech that I wanted to make.

Viscount Simon: And me.

The Earl of Erroll: The amendment is excellent in principle. However, I suspect that the table itself should not be included in primary legislation. It might be wise to increase speed limits on motorways, for example, which are extremely safe roads. While I shall not argue about what should be the penalties in areas with 30 mile per hour speed limits, I think that the current system of all or nothing is a bit ridiculous. The concept of graduated points according to the severity of the offence is extremely sensible. It will go a long way to avoiding anomalies whereby someone loses his licence and livelihood for a minor infringement in conditions that could otherwise be considered safe.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I took careful note of the assenting voices after the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and he clearly was not speaking alone. However, I was grateful also to the noble Earl, Lord Errol, for putting an alternative viewpoint—which is the one that we take on these amendments.
	We still have a lot of consultation work to do. There are many and varied viewpoints on just what the table should look like, and we do not pretend that the debate has been fully thrashed out. We have it in mind that this debate will take some time before we reach a decision on secondary legislation. I hasten to add that I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said about secondary legislation. I assure him that it would be done by affirmative order and would therefore be considered seriously by both Houses. We have to take into account what will be recognised in this Chamber as very diverse views. Our minds are not entirely made up. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, pressed me rather more vigorously on a previous group of amendments. He probably considered that I had evaded the issue and had not addressed them. I apologise for not responding to that important point but I take the opportunity to do so now.
	I am not in a position to be definitive. We shall have a substantial debate about speeding as we discuss the Bill further. A significant section of the Bill is devoted to that issue. We shall come to that. The Government have not made up their mind on the issue. We want enabling legislation to be in place to allow the issue to be resolved with an affirmative order being put before both Houses for consideration after the conclusion of debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, probed me on the matter of process.

Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may probe the Minister a little more. I was trying to discover what offence resulted in six points and what offence resulted in two points. Will the Government indicate their thinking on that matter at the moment?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The amendments that we are discussing concern speeding. We shall discuss speeding when we reach the clauses which address that. However, we shall also debate the broader issue of penalty points, which ranges far beyond speeding. The affirmative order will need to encompass all aspects of road safety. I will not be drawn at this point; otherwise, I face the great danger of having to produce a comprehensive answer on virtually every single amendment in the Bill. First, I am not capable of doing that and, secondly, the answer might be comprehensive but it would not be definitive because, as I have indicated, the Government have not made up their mind.

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that reply. As I have said two or three times, this is a probing amendment to try to get some idea of the Government's thinking. I do not envy the Government in trying to resolve the issue as many different views are held on it. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that much consultation will be undertaken. It is important to consult road users, safety interests, the police and everyone else before a final conclusion is reached. I was also pleased to hear the Minister say that there will be further debate on the issue here as obviously the ultimate reasoning regarding what constitutes two or six points is very much in the public's mind. However, I hear what the Minister said. We shall debate the issues further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 not moved.]
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Giving of fixed penalty notices by vehicle examiners]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hanningfield: In opposing the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill, I seek further information from the Government.
	Clause 4 refers to Schedule 1, which will allow vehicle examiners from the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, VOSA, to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of those offences for which they have enforcement powers. We debated that matter earlier.
	The schedule will also empower VOSA to deal with other matters connected to the operation of the fixed penalty system on behalf of the Secretary of State. The right of the recipient of a fixed penalty notice to request a court hearing would not be affected.
	In tabling these amendments, I hope that the Minister will be able to set out what the policy of the department will be on the exercise of discretion on whether to impose penalties under the powers set out in the schedule.
	There is much concern that, as soon as we get into the fixed penalty regime, discretion will go out of the window. I hope that the Minister will assure us that it is not the intention of the department that every breach of any regulation that is governed by the schedule will automatically result in the imposition of a fixed penalty and that common sense and discretion will be applied in generous measure.
	I wish also to ask the Minister about the mechanics of the handling of licences that must be endorsed. Can he give us some assurances about the time-scales in which those licences will be returned? The circumstances would be different if a penalty involved disqualification, but in the routine case of an endorsement someone might be without a licence for a fairly long time, which could be a serious problem for a professional driver.
	Perhaps the Minister will also explain why he thinks that making the change is a good idea. I think that we should be wary when more people are put in a position in which they can prosecute or penalise motorists because enough people can do that already. I want the Minister to tell us why he wants to add another group of people and not leave it to the tried and tested way of doing things.
	Furthermore, what supervision will there be of the people carrying out the measure? What standards will be set? I know that there is guidance but to what extent will someone who is not one of these inspectors be able to ensure that it is being followed? To what extent will someone be able to compare their practice with that used elsewhere, and, if necessary, will they have the authority to pull a person back into line with other people issuing fixed penalty notices?
	Obviously, one of the suspicions when an agency has the power to levy penalties is that it will be motivated to do so to fund its own activities, as some people have claimed is the case with speed cameras—in short, a self-financing regulatory authority. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an undertaking that VOSA's operations will not be dependent on funding which it obtains from penalties that it imposes. That might give it an incentive to impose more penalties than is fair.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in using this clause stand part debate to probe the Government on this matter. Will the Minister explain how much more additional work for vehicle examiners will result from Clause 4? Are they largely carrying out this work already but now need statutory cover for that, as it were, or will the clause result in their carrying out additional work?

Earl Attlee: I support the concerns of my noble friend on the Front Bench. Often vehicle condition is a matter of opinion and not necessarily a matter of fact. For example, some of the older vehicles that I operate have very heavy steering. However, if an examiner has no experience of such an old vehicle, he will think that it is in poor condition when it is not. Perhaps the examiner's judgment is poor. The person who receives a fixed penalty may decide to pay up as that is easier when in fact he is being slightly unfairly dealt with. It is also important to remember that very few accidents are caused primarily by vehicle condition. They are nearly always caused primarily by driver error. However, it is still important to ensure that vehicles are in good condition. My final observation is that I have much more confidence in VOSA's vehicle examiners than in London parking attendants.

Baroness Hanham: I have one question. I say immediately that as a magistrate I deal regularly with parking and vehicle offences. At the moment, vehicle examiners can be called to a vehicle by a police constable to assess whether or not it is in good condition. The vehicle owner can subsequently be presented with form HORT1, which I believe states that he or she will voluntarily have faults rectified within one week, in which case no penalty will be imposed. It is a voluntary way of having a vehicle's faults put right without incurring a penalty notice. What I am not clear about is whether that system will now be otiose or whether it will sit alongside the fixed penalty system? How will the chicken and the egg line up together?

The Earl of Erroll: I gathered from what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that some of those fixed penalties could give rise to endorsements. Coming from a rural area, the way in which people can accumulate endorsements—perhaps for a series of offences that are not particularly dangerous or particularly putting people at risk—has always worried me. We do many things in our lives every day that could lead to some sort of risk.
	It really concerns me that if people get a few endorsements they could lose their livelihoods or be cut off in rural areas from being able to go anywhere or do anything. That would put a strain on the family. The automatic "12 endorsements and you are out" can be dangerous to family life and to people's employment. We ought to be careful before we allow people to hand out endorsements willy-nilly. They sound terribly nice and easy and simple and not very nasty, but at 12 points they can affect people's lives and economy quite severely.

Earl Attlee: The noble Earl raises an important point, but I can give him a little reassurance. Only defects relating to brakes, steering, or tyres are endorsable.

Lord Davies of Oldham: That was an interesting and rather wide-ranging debate, and I have a number of interesting and specific questions to answer. I hope that I can defend the clause as well, as it is important that it stands part of the Bill.
	First, on the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the police can already use fixed penalties. They do not take away the right of the recipient to request a court hearing. Secondly, because the same system is operated by a different group of accredited agents, that does not invalidate the point that the noble Baroness made that a warning could be issued to the offender. That is exactly her point. The police would say, "You have to put those three things right or condign punishment will be invested on you". It is not intended to change the structure in that respect at all.
	The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked me about the funding issue. There is no netting-off with regard to that. The officers are not going to be funded by the proceeds of the fixed penalty notices that they would be issuing.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was not asking about funding; I was wondering whether this was a new range of activities.

Lord Davies of Oldham: It is, in the sense that being able to enforce fixed penalty notices is a new range of activities. It is consistent with the role that they play at present, either in pulling a vehicle over and beginning scrutiny of that vehicle, or when the police have called them to carry out an examination of a vehicle. They are not changing their role in respect of this clause; but they will have powers comparable to those of the police as enforcement agents. That is the issue. I am sorry if I misunderstood him with regard to the funding issue; I am getting exceedingly nervous about funding questions after the battering that I have already had this afternoon on that.
	I bear in mind the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about the accumulation of offences. However, in any walk of life remote from motoring the accumulation of offences is a pretty serious process to be involved in, so of course the racking-up of potential punishment is related to the accumulation of offences—that runs throughout our justice system. It may be thought that the problem with motoring is that all of us only commit minor motoring offences and what a terrible thing it is that we have committed a minor motoring offence four times within a space of time and we lose our licence. Well—if breaking the law is a danger to the community, breaking the law four times is a pretty serious danger. That is the answer to his point.

The Earl of Erroll: I will tell noble Lords the problem. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned it. If you were not watching your tyres very carefully, and you drove to Scotland and back, you could actually be disqualified if someone spotted you on your return. If you had four slightly under the limit tyres—which would have been perfectly legal a few years back—because it is three points per tyre, that is 12 points—and you are out.

Baroness Hanham: I want to pick up that point. If anyone comes to court with a danger of having 12 points on their licence, in court they can ask for special hardship to be taken into account; which would take into account the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about suddenly being without a licence. Is someone who suddenly finds themselves with 12 points on their licence because of that limited number of fixed penalties going to be able to go to court, having already racked them up, and issue a special pleading for special hardship? If not, that becomes unfair because they would not have the right that they have now to put those matters before magistrates.

Lord Davies of Oldham: If the individual is threatened with the loss of a licence, and if that is a crippling punishment as far as they are concerned, of course they have the choice of going to court and trying to persuade the court that there are extenuating circumstances. I take it that if in fact there are extenuating circumstances and the person feels very hard done by, and if the consequences of the punishment would be so condign, he or she would undoubtedly go to court. There is nothing in this legislation that changes that at all, as I am seeking to impress on noble Lords.
	The clause does empower those inspection officers with the same powers as the police for enforcement against infringements of the law. That is the basis of the clause, and that is why it is such a substantial part of the Bill.

Lord Hanningfield: The question that I asked was about consistency. Obviously police are trained, and one has faith in that system, but if a new group of people are able to award fixed penalty notices that could lead to possible disqualification, we need to know that they are consistent and that they have the right training. That group of people would have a lot of power that they did not have before. If they have power, they need to have the ability to use that power.

Earl Attlee: I offer some reassurance to my noble friend on the Front Bench. The VOSA examiners are technicians—they are specialists in vehicle technology— whereas the police officer has possibly only attended a relatively short course. In fact, I would have much more confidence in a VOSA examiner than in the police.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Earl. As I say, if one sits quietly enough, one gets the answers.
	I was going to venture the obvious point that the vehicle inspection officers are not amateurs; they already make significant judgments. If you are driving your lorry from London to Scotland, and the vehicle inspectors decide at Arbroath that your lorry has to be taken off the road, that is a pretty severe punishment. They already have that power and that right. We are not talking about ill-trained amateurs; we are talking about professionals who are concerned with the roadworthiness of a vehicle, which is a crucial aspect of road safety.
	I bear in mind entirely what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, that vehicle defects represent a small percentage of the causes of accidents, and driver error accounts for a much greater percentage. Nevertheless, it is our duty to ensure that vehicles are safe on the roads. We all know the enormous obligations that we all have to maintain vehicles in reasonable states of repair.
	Apart from the general points that I sought to make with regard to the Bill, there is an obvious anomaly that the clause sets out to correct. At the moment, two agencies—the police and the vehicle inspectorate—are empowered to enforce traffic and roadworthiness regulations, but do not share the same powers to sanction offenders. Currently, only the police can issue fixed penalty notices. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that the accredited vehicle safety inspectors are in the same position. It is on that basis that I defend the clause and hope that the noble Lord will not press for its deletion.

Earl Attlee: I have a slight anxiety; if the Minister would prefer to write to me, I would I understand. Goods vehicles have to go to goods vehicles testing stations for their annual tests. Sometimes they are detected to have serious faults that mean that they cannot go on the road. They should not be presented like that, but the fact is that they are. It is fair enough to prohibit them, but would VOSA issue fixed penalty notices as a result of an annual test?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I may have to write to the noble Earl. It is obvious enough that you have no defence to any police officer in saying, "I know that my car's an old wreck, but I'm just taking it for a test to make sure of what kind of wreck it is so that I can rectify it". If I am driving the car to a test station, if it is not roadworthy and if I am stopped, I am vulnerable, and the same would apply for a goods vehicle.

Earl Attlee: I accept the noble Lord's argument, but the anxiety is that the person taking the vehicle to a goods vehicle testing station is an employee and might not have an awful lot of choice. He is in some difficulty.

Lord Davies of Oldham: On that additional point, I shall have to write to the noble Earl.

Lord Hanningfield: As the Minister said, it has been an interesting debate with all sorts of views from all over the place. I hear what has been said. Some points possibly still need to be answered, so perhaps the Minister could reflect on that and, if need be, write to us on them after the debate has been studied.

Clause 4 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 5 agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 23:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"GOODS VEHICLE LICENCES
	(1) For section 3 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c. 23) ("standard" and "restricted" licences), substitute—
	"3 LICENCE AUTHORISATION
	(1) A licence may authorise a goods vehicle to be used for the carriage of goods—
	(a) on both national and international transport operations; or
	(b) on national transport operations only.
	(2) A person who uses a goods vehicle for carrying goods for hire or reward on international transport operations under a licence which covers the carriage of goods on national transport operations only is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale."
	(2) In section 13 of that Act (determination of applications for operators' licensing)—
	(a) in subsection (1) omit the word "standard"; and
	(b) omit subsections (2) and (4).
	(3) Section 4 (temporary exemptions) shall cease to have effect."

Earl Attlee: Under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, an operator's licence is required for all goods vehicles used commercially over 3.5 tonnes. The licence can be for national or international operations, and for "own account" or "hire and reward". In the case of a standard licence, a professionally competent manager—the transport manager—is required to run the transport operation.
	Over recent years, the "hire and reward" sector, which requires a standard licence, has improved its standards. That may partially be due to fewer very small fleets. Unfortunately, I keep reading in the commercial press, particularly Commercial Motor, of cases of standard vehicle licence holders in serious difficulties with vehicle maintenance and the general operation of the vehicle. Often, that is a result of ignorance. It frequently involves scaffolding and building operators. For instance, last week in Commercial Motor, I read a report of a groundwork contractor who was stopped by VOSA. His vehicle had two defective tyres, loose wheel nuts, a defective speed limiter, inadequate inspection reports, and only a 33 per cent prohibition rate and a 50 per cent pass rate at annual tests.
	If my amendment were agreed, all transport operations would be managed by someone professionally competent. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: This would be a radical change to existing arrangements. The UK is the only country in the EU that has a system of restricted licences for operators who carry goods for their own businesses, rather than on behalf of other people. Other member states do not follow that pattern of licensing. The requirements that "own account" operators have to meet in the UK are therefore already a good deal stricter than elsewhere in Europe. There is little evidence that restricted licence holders operate their vehicles less safely than standard national or international operators. I hear what the noble Earl says about some articles that appear, and there may be hearsay, but our judgment of the evidence before us is that the present licensing system of two categories does not lead to one being vastly superior to the other.
	Applying the full requirements for standard licence holders would be a significant burden on the high proportion of them who run small businesses. Restricted licence holders have to prove to a traffic commissioner that they are fit to hold a licence and have the resources to run their vehicles safely and within the law. They are subject to exactly the same road safety laws relating to vehicle standards and driver behaviour as other operators.
	Even if there were a case for revising the operator licensing system in the way that the noble Earl envisages, we could consider making such radical changes, affecting almost half the users of heavy goods vehicles, only after a proper review of the system and full consultation with those affected. We are satisfied that the current arrangements strike the right balance between the need to ensure that vehicles are operated safely and avoiding unnecessary burdens on operators.
	I hope that the noble Earl will recognise that the amendment would introduce a significant change, affecting a large number of operators. We could conceive of that only with very extensive consultation. At the moment, we are unpersuaded of the case.

Lord Bradshaw: I have some sympathy with the noble Earl because, particularly in the scaffolding business, the things carried on such lorries are extremely dangerous. The scaffold poles and the boards can and do fall off the vehicles and cause grievous damage to other, properly maintained vehicles. There is a case for making sure that people who use quite large lorries to convey loads that are not well secured conform to some stronger form of governance. The noble Earl has hit a nail on the head. Such people require rather stronger regulation than the Government appear to think.
	The advent of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act has meant that far more buildings, including those that require painting, decorating and alterations, require scaffolding than ever used to. Without casting aspersions on the people in the scaffolding trade, I do not think that many of them would qualify for the higher echelons of employment. This is an area to which the Minister might give rather more serious consideration. When such materials are contained in contained vehicles such as vans, I have some sympathy with the Minister's point, but, particularly in the case of scaffolding lorries, the goods conveyed are not contained. They are loose on the lorry, they are often secured only by a piece of rope, and the consequences of scaffolding falling off are devastating.

Earl Attlee: I am not surprised by the Minister's response, because I tabled a similar amendment to the Transport Bill. He said that there was little evidence of problems. What is the difference between the annual pass rates at goods vehicle testing stations for holders of restricted licences and those of standard licences? I should be happy for the Minister to write to me. Can he also say now what extra burden the amendment would put on businesses, other than the requirement for a person to be professionally competent?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Earl should not be too dismissive of that last point. It means that a single operator must have a professionally competent person alongside him to do one job—to ensure that his truck meets the standards. The noble Earl may employ people by the thousand, but I know that many one-person businesses, if they were compelled to double their wage bill, would go out of business. So, the matter is not as easy as the noble Earl indicated.
	Regarding scaffolding, we all recognise the fact that certain trades carry their loose materials around with them. I would not be as disparaging as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but he does not receive as many votes from builders as my party—as was in evidence in the recent election. All I am saying is that we have no evidence of vast amounts of scaffolding cascading down our roads that would render the accident rate so appalling that we would need to change the licensing system.

Earl Attlee: The Minister has misunderstood the requirement for a transport manager. The amendment does not require the employment of an extra person; it requires that someone in the organisation should have that qualification, holding a certificate of professional competence. I have a certificate of professional competence, so, if I wished to operate a goods vehicle for hire and reward, I would already meet that requirement by being professionally qualified. If you operate a goods vehicle, with all the damage that it could do, you should be professionally qualified.
	I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Although we may have overdone the point regarding the nature of the load on a scaffolding vehicle, people who operate scaffolding, building, tipper or muck-away trucks are often not in a good position properly to maintain their vehicles. A requirement to have someone who is professionally qualified and who knows what should be done and what is not strictly necessary would be beneficial. In the mean time, I thank the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 6 agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Driving record]:

Lord Tordoff: Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, to move Amendment No. 24, I gather that Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 are grouped with it. If Amendment No. 25 were agreed to, that would pre-empt Amendment No. 26.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 5, leave out lines 9 and 10.

Lord Hanningfield: Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 cover paragraph (e), which deals with other prescribed persons, and the subsequent subsections that would introduce it through statutory instrument. Who do the Government have in mind for that category of other prescribed persons? That could raise a real issue about the misuse of official information.
	Equally, as noble Lords may have realised, I do not much like secondary legislation, particularly dealing with something as important as this. We are concerned that information on driving records could be accessed relatively easily by a large number of people and, therefore, left open to abuse. Such information could be worth a lot of money to some people. It would be unhealthy if a host of fixed penalty clerks and other prescribed persons could spend their day trawling through records to see whether they could find information of worth—for example, on any of us—that they could supply to the press for profit.
	Why is the paragraph needed? What does the department have in mind? What steps can be taken to ensure that such sensitive information is not misused? I beg to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I hope that the Minister can explain whether such a driving record is new. As a driver, will I be sent one, or does it already exist and is merely being legitimised?

Baroness Crawley: I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and it was as if he was repeating the same questions that I was asking the civil servants earlier about the people who may eventually need access to a driving record. I hope that, by the end of my contribution, I shall also have answered the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie.
	Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to prescribe, by regulations, other persons to have access to information held on a person's driving record. Clause 7 introduces the concept of a driving record maintained by the Secretary of State that would be the official record of a driver's endorsement history. So, as the Bill wishes to describe it, there will be a new item called a "driving record". As we see it, at present, the police have access to our driving record, but the Bill establishes a new item called a "driving record", and I shall explain how that will come about.
	It would enable the introduction at Clause 9 of the new system of endorsement for all drivers, based on inspection of the driving record rather than the counterpart. At present, as noble Lords will know, your driving licence consists of a plastic card and the document that I am now displaying, a driving counterpart. The Bill aims to remove the driving counterpart and, instead, there would be an electronic record that would be available to the police and others.

Lord Hanningfield: Is the Minister describing another ID card?

Baroness Crawley: No, I am not talking about an ID card, although I am mindful of the discussions that are taking place in another place this week.
	It is expected that it will take up to five years before the new system of endorsement can be commenced. That is partly due to the complexity of creating the necessary electronic links between the police, the courts and the DVLA. So the driving record would be established once those links were there. They are not necessarily there at present. In addition to that, once the new system of endorsement is introduced, although the counterpart will no longer have any statutory functions, it will take the DVLA up to five years to establish alternative procedures for all the other information functions that the counterpart currently provides.
	In response to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I say that the department has tried to identify all the persons who at this stage, we envisage, would require access to information held on the driving record. However, when we implement the new system of endorsement, it may become apparent that there are other people who require access for the system to work, hence the reference to other prescribed persons in new Section 97A(2)(e).
	What people may eventually need to have access to the driving record? District and borough councils request applicants to declare any endorseable offences, and they inspect applicants' driving licences to confirm their statements. So, local authorities could benefit from direct access to the database. Another organisation could be the military, as the Secretary of State does not have the power to share data directly from the driver record with the MoD. Future direct access to the driving record may therefore be required to check that people who are going to drive for the MoD have the necessary entitlements and have not been disqualified. Those are two examples of organisations that could come under the reference to other prescribed persons in the paragraph.
	In its first report of the current Session, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee commented that, in view of the potential significance of the power to extend the categories that we have talked about, the affirmative procedure should apply. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that it was a step change and that therefore that procedure might be necessary. We fully understand the view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and we are happy to make an amendment so that the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure will apply. That will be achieved by Amendment No. 26.
	Schedule 2 to the Bill contains legislative amendments about the endorsement of driving records in the case of unlicensed drivers and certain foreign drivers. Amendment No. 27 will correct a minor drafting omission by inserting an amendment to Schedule 2. The amendment will amend Section 30 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which relates to the modification of penalty points where a fixed penalty is also in question. Although Section 30 of that Act has been repealed in Scotland by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 2004, it still has effect in England and Wales. It is therefore necessary to amend Section 30 to ensure that it takes account of the provisions introduced by the Bill concerning the new system of endorsement. The amendment will insert a new paragraph 4A into Schedule 2 that amends Section 30 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to insert references to a person's driving record and to Sections 57A and 77A of that Act, which are to be inserted by this Bill.
	I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw Amendment No. 24, not move Amendment No. 25 and support Amendments Nos. 26 and 27.

Lord Berkeley: Will the Minister explain why the military should have access to information about points on people's licences? In response to a previous amendment, my noble friend Lord Davies said that the military should not be able to direct traffic or heavy loads. If it is not capable of directing traffic, why should it have access to information about people's points? Is it as an employer? If it is, what about other employers? Why should they not have access too?

Earl Attlee: Members of the Committee should avoid repeating each other's speeches; otherwise, I would say exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, just said.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am slightly concerned about a different aspect. I understood the Minister to say that the counterpart endorsement would be gone and that a person will not have any proof in his own hands of what endorsements he has. As the Internet is so subject to people cracking codes, is there a danger that someone could falsify a person's record without him knowing, as he would not have his own copy of his record to prove it?

Lord Bradshaw: I wish to raise two other matters. Does the system apply only to the driver, or is there a record of the vehicle as well? From the point of view of the police, it would be extremely useful if they knew whether vehicles were licensed and insured or whether they had been stolen. Secondly, will the system contain information that would be of use to county councils on the sort of people who they are not allowed to employ to drive school buses and other such vehicles because they have previous convictions for offences against children?

Baroness Crawley: I shall start with the question asked by the noble Baroness. We envisage that, in place of the counterpart document, which is a legal document, there will be a document containing information useful to a driver that he could keep with him. That document would be available, and the information on it would presumably be updated from time to time. It would not be a legal document as the counterpart is now. If I have more information on what is envisaged to replace the counterpart for the convenience of the driver, I shall ensure that the noble Baroness is written to.
	In fact, we might short-cut that letter. I understand that the DVLA intends to write to drivers every time that their record is amended—for example, after an endorsement is made. That will give the driver an opportunity to challenge the amendment, if he thinks that it is incorrect. I think that that was at the back of the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. In addition, drivers will have access to their record—to the information document, which is not a legal document—by telephone or electronic links. I also understand that it will be available in printed form, but I shall ensure that the noble Baroness receives an answer on that.

Baroness Hanham: Has the Minister ever tried to ring the DVLA as a private person, not as an official? If this is going to happen, the communication system between the public and the DVLA—I do not mean the courts and the DVLA—will have to be improved seriously.

Baroness Crawley: That is a point well made. I have tried to do so as an ordinary member of the public. It is often extremely difficult to get through. I take that on board.

Lord Berkeley: Will the DVLA call centre be in the UK, or will it be offshore?

Baroness Crawley: I do not have that information to hand, but if it is available—I doubt that it is—my noble friend will receive a letter from me.
	I move on to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about whether information would be about the driver only or whether it would also be about the vehicle. As I understand it, it is about the driver. That is how I read the Bill.
	I was asked by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about the military. I do not know whether I can give an effective answer, except to mention the importance in security terms for the MoD to ensure that its drivers are properly qualified. I presume that that is the thinking behind why it could be included in this group of persons other than the Secretary of State. Does the noble Earl want to come back on that?

Earl Attlee: What about the petroleum company tanker carrying petrol or a chemical company, maybe a tanker carrying liquid chlorine?

Baroness Crawley: The noble Earl makes a very good point. I am sure that we shall look carefully at the concerns expressed about the envisaged width of organisations that might possibly need access to driving records. We will be very careful about who has access to the record.
	Noble Lords raised concerns about people possibly making money from accessing your driving record. I also asked that question. I was told—and I hope this gives some confidence to noble Lords—that any access to the electronic document that is your driving record at the end of this proposal would have a trail attached to it. So, first, the security would be very tight so far as anyone being able to access that record. Should that security be breached there would be a documentary trail attached to who had access to your record. I think we are being told that that access would be very secure and that even if it were breached there would be evidence.

Earl Attlee: I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but my concern was that surely certain commercial organisations should have access to the driving record. The point is not about why the MoD should have it but that commercial organisations should have access for the reasons I have described.

Lord Berkeley: I agree with that. This is access to a person's driving record for an employer who wishes to take on a professional driver. Whether he is an oil-tanker driver, an MoD driver or any other type of driver, employers still have the same responsibility for road safety accidents—they may be carrying dangerous goods or whatever. I would have thought that it was equitable that every employer should have access to this record on the same basis. Perhaps my noble friend can consider before the next stage of the Bill how that could be done because we will probably want to explore further the issue.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My noble friend Lord Bradshaw asked about social work organisations needing access to establish that the person proposing to drive the minibus for a children's home is not a sex offender. I hope that the noble Baroness can clarify that that will be the case.
	Is this driving record a bad driving record, or will it cover any, for example, advanced motoring tests which have been passed, which might be described as "good driving records"?

Baroness Crawley: As I understand it, it will be your driving record. Therefore it will be the record of both good and bad, if you like. On appropriate people accessing the record, and the example of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, of the social services, it would be important that appropriate people have access. I was taking the access concerns as meaning people getting into your records who, as it were, have no business to be nosing around them. But as far as appropriate agencies are concerned, that is absolutely right.
	I shall reflect on and take up with the department the commercial question which both my noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, put to me.

Earl Attlee: Is the Minister saying that I will have to have my Institute of Advanced Motorists put on my driving record?

Baroness Crawley: Perhaps on that specific point I may come back to the noble Earl.

Lord Hanningfield: I think we have had an extraordinary debate on the issue. The Minister has surprised us by effectively announcing the end of the driving licence as we know it, which obviously has profound political and public interest. There are a lot of questions to be answered, as we have heard in this debate. Modern technology being what it is, the noble Baroness might be optimistic in thinking it can all be achieved in five years. Most of us are involved in all sorts of projects which seem to take much longer than we ever imagined they would. Whether we can link everyone up in five years to provide this will be interesting.
	There are, as I said, a lot of questions to be answered. One of my amendments on Report might be where the DVLA will be situated in the future. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked that pertinent question. We must reflect on the debate and read Hansard. There are lots of points to ponder. Perhaps the noble Baroness will think about the issues and clarify some of them. I am sure that we will return to the matter with renewed vigour on Report. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 5, line 13, leave out from beginning to "House" in line 15 and insert "No regulations shall be made under subsection (2)(e) above unless a draft of the instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Endorsement: unlicensed and foreign drivers]:

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 58, line 26, at end insert—
	"4A (1) Section 30 (modification of sections 28 and 29 in case where fixed penalty also in question) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(b)—
	(a) after "licence" insert "or his driving record", and
	(b) for "or 77" substitute ", 57A, 77 or 77A".
	(3) In subsection (2)(b)—
	(a) after "licence" insert "or on his driving record", and
	(b) for "or 77" substitute ", 57A, 77 or 77A"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 9 agreed to.

Lord Bradshaw: moved Amendment No. 28:
	After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
	"ENDORSABLE OFFENCES
	(1) In section 15 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)—
	(a) in subsection (1), for "fourteen" substitute "sixteen";
	(b) in subsection (3), for "fourteen" substitute "sixteen".
	(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (prosecution and punishment of offences)—
	(a) in the entry relating to RTA section 14, in column (6) insert "Obligatory.";
	(b) in the entry relating to RTA section 15(2), in column (6) insert "Obligatory";
	(c) in the entry relating to RTA section 15(4), in column (6) insert "Obligatory"."

Lord Bradshaw: I start from the premise that the Government's intention is to include in the Bill the fact that the use of a hand-held mobile telephone will become an endorsable offence. That has long been expected. Therefore, I want to talk about another endorsable offence; namely the wearing of seat belts.
	It has been the case for a long time that the department, which is well represented over there, has resisted the addition of an endorsable offence of using a hand-held mobile telephone because it is not actually a driving offence. It is not actually to do with driving a car. It is something else: it is using a mobile phone. By the same token, I believe that they have regarded not wearing a seat belt as not a driving offence—it is not to do with the conduct of a vehicle; it is an offence that is an adjunct to it, but not an offence of driving the vehicle.
	My concern is that to reach the casualty targets that the Government have set themselves during the next few years, a number of bold initiatives must be undertaken. As I said, they have traded strongly on the fact that the design of cars has become so much better over the years that casualty rates had been reduced—not, may I say, through anything that the Government have done but because car manufacturers have made cars much safer and pedestrians and cyclists have been frightened off the road.
	The use of pedal cycles and the amount of walking adjacent to roads has reduced. Although people apparently trumpet the fact that motorways are the safest roads in the country, if one takes into account the fact that no one walks on a motorway—or few people do—and no one cycles on a motorway, the reason that they are the safest roads in the country is because there are no cyclists or pedestrians to knock down. The car drivers who drive into each other kill each other, but there are fewer collisions on motorways because there are no road junctions, where most collisions take place. The intersections on motorways are engineered to avoid collisions. That is why they are the safest roads. They are the safest roads not because people behave themselves well on them but for many other reasons.
	As far as I know, there are no collision statistics collected centrally about the wearing of seat belts. If you ask people after an accident whether they were wearing a seat belt, if they are alive to answer, they will invariably answer yes. It is similar to signals passed at danger on the railway: if you ask a train driver whether he has passed a signal at danger, he will invariably answer no, because he actually thinks that the signal was green. The driver actually believes that he was wearing a seat belt. It is psychological, not a fact.
	Despite the fact that people say that they are wearing seat belts, the wearing rate is very poor. Figures that the DfT has collected show that 7 per cent of car drivers do not wear seat belts and about one-third of adults in the rear do not wear them either. In the Thames Valley, we have come to the conclusion that about one-third of schoolchildren do not wear seat belts. I referred to a more detailed study on Second Reading. In the past three years, those people who were driving or in cars—I am not talking about pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists, because they do not wear seat belts—40 per cent of front seat and 54 per cent of rear seat occupants who were killed were not wearing seat belts. That is an enormous number, and that is a fact. That is not me speculating or telling the House a fable.
	Also, if you look at photographs of car accidents, as I have done, I can show you horrendous accidents of cars down banks, up against trees or smashed into lamp posts. Where the occupant was wearing a seat belt, he has almost always walked away. On the other hand, I can show you another series of accidents where the car windscreen may be slightly broken and where the car is not a write-off, but the occupant is dead because he was not wearing a seat belt. The facts are the simple facts; it is not me embroidering them.
	If someone is ejected from a car after a collision, he is 25 times more likely to be killed than if he is restrained in the car by a seat belt. It will not surprise the Committee to know that an unrestrained driver, passenger or even a dog is a great danger to everyone else inside the car because, when the car hits something, they fly about inside the car.
	We have had these facts investigated by Frank McKenna of the University of Reading, who is an expert on the subject—these are not speculative figures, which is why I am detaining the Committee for longer than I normally would. He has shown that if you catch someone speeding and offer them, as we do, an opportunity to go on a speed awareness course, the take-up rate is about 85 per cent. People do not want the penalty points; they will go on the speed awareness course; that is effective in changing their attitude. Some people it has no effect on, but others it does.
	However, if we offer someone whom we have caught not wearing a seat belt the opportunity to go on a course to consider the effects of not wearing a seat belt—we have lots of smashed up cars and pictures of people who are dead—only 10 per cent of them do so. That leads us to believe that the motivating factor is that if you do not wear a seat belt and a police officer stops you—something of an occasion, because you do not often get stopped by a police officer in uniform—he gives you a fixed penalty notice of £30. Nowadays, that is almost less than you pay to park in many places; it is a derisory fine. It has become almost the small change of motoring fines. Yet that is what you are fined if you do not wear a seat belt.
	Further, under Home Office circular 7/1997, a fixed penalty can be issued only to people over 16. So although people under 14 are the responsibility of their parents, those between 14 and 16 who are not wearing seat belts are in the anomalous position where the police can take them to court but the court has no means of disposing of the offence. They cannot fine them £30 because they are not 16, and there are no other means of disposing of the case.
	I have tried at length to say to the Government that if they are serious about reducing road casualties, they should accept this proposal as a way of doing so. I am fairly certain that if the penalty for not wearing a seat belt were three or even two penalty points, people would wear a seat belt, and I can guarantee that the accident rate in the country would decrease.
	There are few measures requiring no expenditure that would result in an immediate reduction in casualties; this is one of them, and it is why I am moving the amendment. I seriously want the Government to take notice. I am not making up the evidence; it is real. I should like to know that the Minister will at least consider it seriously. I beg to move.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have listened very carefully and found the noble Lord's remarks very interesting. There is slight confusion in the assertion that if we all wore seat belts there would be fewer casualties. Speaking as a dentist, clinics show that wearing seat belts results in fewer fatalities but there is more patching up to do because people who would otherwise have been dead must come in for treatment. I cannot guarantee that wearing seat belts will stop us being injured.
	I wish to focus on the practicalities. I have reached the point where if I do not wear my seat belt in the car I almost feel undressed, because it has become second nature to wear one. I have been in cars where someone's chauffeur has turned around and said, "Please put your seat belt on because otherwise I am liable".
	The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has pointed out in your Lordships' House that few of us wear a seat belt in black cabs. I must admit that I never do. Going around London in a black cab I have never felt at risk. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to 14 to 16 year-old passengers. They do not have a licence to endorse, so the driver's licence must be endorsed. What would be the position of drivers of black cabs or, outside London, other such vehicles? Would we be obliged to put on a seat belt on getting into any licensed passenger vehicle, and who would insist on that? Presumably, the driver would have the onus of insisting on it, as he would lose out otherwise. That practical aspect is slightly difficult.
	The policy for all private drivers and anyone travelling long distance in a faster hired vehicle is different. Another point not covered is the policy on coaches, not all of which have seat belts—there has always been an argument about whether they should. The practicalities are slightly more difficult than the principle, which I support.

Lord Monson: Many noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I oppose the amendment. I shall not challenge the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on comparative statistics concerning seat belts at this time of the evening, although I would be delighted to do so at a later stage. I could argue about it for half an hour if I had time to marshal all the comparative tables that I have.
	I invite the noble Lord only to examine the interim fatality statistics for taxi drivers, who have never been obliged to wear seat belts, although perhaps 0.5 per cent of them choose to do so voluntarily. I would guess that the improvement shown by statistics for fatalities and serious injuries among taxi drivers over the past 20 years is broadly in line with that of the motoring population as a whole.
	The noble Lord talked about people being thrown out of cars. He will not remember the late Lady Alma Birk, who was a Minister on these Benches 25 or so years ago. She was strongly in favour of the introduction of compulsory seat belt wearing yet she admitted that if she had been wearing one at the time of a very nasty accident she would not then have been standing at the Dispatch Box. She had been in a car that ran underneath a lorry, and she was thrown out on to a grass verge and survived. The car was reduced to a height of 18 inches. So it cuts both ways. Of course, on balance it is safer to wear seat belts rather than not, but it is not all one way.
	The obvious reason for the discrepancy between the law on the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving and the law on wearing a seat belt is that if you use a hand-held mobile telephone you are quite likely to run into somebody else and kill or severely injury them, whereas if you do not wear a seat belt the person you are most likely to kill or seriously injure is yourself.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, gave a guarantee that if the amendment were agreed to the accident rate would go down. That suggests that there would be fewer collisions. I think not. Surely he has heard of the risk-compensation hypothesis. Perhaps the injury rate would go down but not the accident rate. The hour is late so I shall take up cudgels on the matter at greater length another time.

Baroness Hanham: I do not have the Road Traffic Act 1988 before me therefore I am not clear how either amendment would introduce penalty points. The first amendment changes the age from 14 to 16 and the second makes a whole raft of things obligatory, but neither indicates where the penalty points system would come in.
	My second point picks up that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. It depends who would have responsibility under the penalty points system. Is it the driver or, under the new system of drivers' records, would passengers have three penalty points foisted upon them regardless of whether they had a licence?
	Thirdly, as I understand it, the insurance industry is very hot on whether people were wearing seat belts at the time of an accident. If someone is lamentably hurt in an accident, an insurance company takes into account whether a seat belt was worn.
	I would have difficulties in supporting the amendment but the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, may wish briefly to comment on the points that I have made in response.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for introducing the amendment. I am not happy with some of his arguments about motorways and vehicle safety but his amendment builds on my Amendments Nos. 87 to 89, which were not quite properly drafted. I believe that the noble Lord's amendments taken together provide for penalty points.
	The legislation is weak in this area. It is obvious that seat belts save lives. The noble Lord talked about improvements in car design but overlooked improvements and comfort in seat belt design. The seat belts in an early Land Rover were static and worse than useless but seat belts are now brilliantly designed and have many clever features.
	Motorists do not care about small fines. The noble Lord talked about the £30 fine, which is considerably smaller than the one you would acquire if you forgot to pay the congestion charge. Penalty points concentrate the mind very well. If drivers are prepared to expose themselves and their youngsters to a totally unnecessary risk of severe injury, they must put their licence in jeopardy.
	The noble Lord talked about unrestrained drivers. A particular problem arises with lorry drivers. If they are involved in a relatively minor accident they can get thrown from their driving seat and go on to be involved in a devastating accident because they can no longer fully control the vehicle. We should ensure that lorry drivers always wear seat belts, when fitted.

Lord Berkeley: There will be an interesting debate about whether this amendment or the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, or both, achieve the objective that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seeks. The noble Lord has shown me some of the pictures to which he referred, and they certainly concentrate the mind.
	I do not believe that we can argue about the statistics. We have to recognise that, whatever individual cases there may be of people surviving because they happened not to be wearing a seat belt—or people getting away with something or not being as badly hurt as they might have been—the statistics tell you that wearing a seat belt gives you a major advantage of being less hurt or staying alive. The objective, after all, is to keep people alive and reduce the severity of any injuries they might receive. I agree that the imposition of penalty points would concentrate the mind.
	Surely the driver should be responsible for ensuring that passengers wear seat belts. People say it is difficult but, if you are the driver, it is quite easy to turn around and ask your passengers, "Have you all got your belts on?" If someone says, "I am not going to wear it", you say, "Well, I am not moving". It is quite simple; you do not have to move.
	Reference has been made to black cabs and taxis. My understanding of why taxi-drivers do not have to wear belts is that they argued that they might be attacked from behind by one of their passengers and they could get out the cab quicker. I do not know what would happen to the cab if they were moving. Slow moving vehicles such as milk floats are another issue.
	It all comes back to the faster you go, the more protection you need. You must have a belt on. If one of your passengers has not got it on, you do not move.
	At Second Reading, reference was made to the horrific accident that took place on one of the Oxford by-passes about a month ago when a car went across the central reservation. I am not sure whether the driver was wearing a belt but there were six, seven or eight teenagers inside and in the back who had no belts on. Several were killed and some of them are still in hospital. Why they crossed the central reservation we do not know; it was an accident in which these people were either killed or seriously injured. But if the number of people in the car had been the number for which the car was designed, and if they had been wearing belts, there might have been a very different outcome.
	I hope that we can sort out a suitable amendment to achieve this very important aim.

Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, sits down, can he tell the Committee what a driver is meant to do if he is driving a large, bolshy teenager of the kind depicted by Harry Enfield who, when travelling on a motorway at 70 miles per hour, suddenly decides to take his seat belt off? What is a driver meant to do in such circumstances?

Lord Berkeley: I suggest that the driver stops and waits for the teenager to put his belt on again. If the police come along, he can have an argument. It is an issue that has to be resolved. When he is being stroppy the teenager may say "I'm not going to wear a belt", but he might equally say, "Well, I'm going to thump the driver". It is the same thing—you have got to stop—but it is not an argument for not wearing seat belts and not having a penalty for drivers who do not make their passengers wear belts and keep them on. It is an issue that has to be dealt with.

Earl Attlee: The carefully thought-out answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, of course, is that the driver drives to the nearest safe place and then tells the passenger to get out.

Baroness Crawley: Yes. But then you have the problem of a teenager without any money in his pockets looking at how he is going to get home.
	We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate about seat belts. In response to the call of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that the Government should take seriously his amendment, I should tell him that we of course take all amendments very seriously. I hope to have some positive news for him extremely shortly.
	As to who should be responsible for 14 and 15 year-olds, I understand the concern of noble Lords that the police should be able to deal with children who do not use their seat belts. That is why the current law makes the driver responsible for those under 14 and the matter can be dealt with under the fixed penalty procedure. However, the question of responsibility for tackling offences committed by those under 16 raises wider issues than those related to seat belt offences. The Government believe that this matter should be considered as a whole and not in a piecemeal way, offence by offence. It would be unwise therefore to change existing requirements until we have had an opportunity properly to consider the ramifications across all government departments.
	However, I understand that the Home Office is willing to take this issue forward, which is a very positive and serious response from the Government. I cannot be more prescriptive today than that but, as I said, our understanding is that the Home Office is willing to look at this and take it forward.
	In the mean time, the present penalties apply. By virtue of Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 a seat belt offence may be dealt with by the fixed penalty procedure. However, in accordance with guidance set out in Home Office circular 92/85, it is police policy not to issue fixed penalty notices for failure to wear a seat belt to 14 and 15 year-olds.
	I can assure the Committee that this does not mean that the police cannot deal with juveniles. In exercising their judgment they take whatever action they think appropriate. In many cases they will aim to educate drivers. The police feel that it is more important to hammer home the message of why it is important for young people to wear their seat belts. But if the police consider that the circumstances justify greater action, they may issue a summons to require a young person to appear in court, where the normal penalty for seat belt wearing offences would apply—a fine of up to a maximum of £500.
	As to the issue of licence endorsement, while I do not doubt the importance of the intentions behind the amendment, the Government consider that the endorsement of licences with penalty points should be reserved for the most serious driving offences. While we are in no way complacent, we are pleased to say that in Britain we already have what we consider—and I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—to be very high seat-belt wearing rates; that is, more than 93 per cent of people in the front seats of cars, a similar level for children in the rear of cars but a lower level for adults—65 per cent—in the rear of cars.
	In view of this, the Government believe that the proposed level 2 fine of £500 is right for this offence. A level 3 fine of £1,000 and endorsement for those convicted in court is simply too high and would put the offence on a par with unlicensed driving, speeding and traffic light offences. We believe that the best approach is to continue to educate drivers about the importance of seat belts, supported by police enforcement as appropriate.
	The Committee may wish to know that in England and Wales the police issued 145,000 fixed penalties in 2003 and took some 5,000 cases to court for seat-belt wearing offences.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, asked about black cab drivers. Our understanding is that black cab drivers are not liable for their passengers if there is a partition between themselves and the passenger. That I believe covers the points made to me, although during the debate a number of concerns were raised.
	The £30 fixed penalty fine is the standard fine level for all non-endorsable offences. If seat-belt wearing offences were to become endorsable, the level would automatically rise to £60. The Home Office keeps penalties under review to ensure that fine levels remain appropriate and would, of course, consult on any proposals to change them.

Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's reasonably positive reply. She spoke about penalties, but I am not sure she understood that my intention and, I suspect, that of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was significantly to increase penalties. The Minister also talked about other government departments, particularly the Home Office. Does she speak for Her Majesty's Government or the Home Office?

Baroness Crawley: From this Dispatch Box, I speak for Her Majesty's Government.

Lord Bradshaw: I am a little confused and somewhat disappointed by the reply that I have received. The education of people who do not wear seat belts is almost a dead letter. I reiterated very clearly that only 10 per cent of people who are prosecuted by the police elect to go on an education course: 85 per cent of people caught for speeding do so. In other words, people do not care. The reason they do not care is that the fine is totally derisory. The offence needs to be endorsable. I am not saying that the endorsement should be three points, just that there should be something in the way of points. Then people will go on education courses and will see the consequences.
	I hope for a better reply on Report, because I will put the matter to a Division. I will make sure that the Government are very firmly put in the position that the seat belt deaths that are occurring week by week are their responsibility. They are not the responsibility of anyone else and cannot be brushed off on the public at large or someone else. I assume that it is because the Government refuse to take action. There must be something better: a £30 fixed penalty notice is nonsense. I cannot think that a £30 penalty is in any way appropriate for offences that may lead to the deaths of people. On Report, I hope that the Minister will have reconsidered her position. The position of the department is untenable and will not lead to the necessary reduction in deaths to reach the Government's targets. It is a serious matter.
	I fully understand the situation of black cab drivers, who are in a special position. There is a big partition in a black cab. It is very unlikely that people in the back will be thrown through. They are also professional drivers. We may all have our stories about black cab drivers and their behaviour, but they drive all of the time in the worst possible traffic conditions. They are professional drivers. Nor do they drive very fast in London because it is not possible, although occasionally they may try.

Lord Monson: When I referred to black cab drivers, I was talking about the drivers themselves, who I contend show the same improvement in their fatality and serious injury rate as motorists taken as a whole.

Baroness Hanham: As regards the point about who will be penalised with penalty points, I do not think that any of us is arguing about the fact that people ought to wear seat belts. We are not. It is the sine qua non that they save lives. I am trying to extract who will be the subject of the penalty points. Will the driver be responsible for making sure that everyone in the car is wearing a seat belt? If they are not, is he or she likely to be subject to the penalty points or will it be the person not wearing the seat belt; that is, a passenger, either in the front or the back?
	It would be very difficult for the police or courts to bring in a judgment about penalty points, whereas it is not so difficult to impose a fixed penalty fine for not wearing a seat belt. If the noble Lord is to produce these amendments, we must have real clarity on where the penalty points will impinge.

Earl Attlee: The answer to my noble friend's question is that it must be the driver, but he needs to have a reasonable defence. If he can show that he tried to get the passengers to wear seat belts, he may be able to prove mitigating circumstances.

Lord Bradshaw: In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, if the person who was not wearing a seat belt was a driver, I cannot see why he should not get the penalty points. He knows as well as anyone the importance of wearing a seat belt. The driver is responsible for children, about whom I am most concerned. I am well aware of the accident to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, drew attention when a number of children were killed on the Oxford bypass about three weeks ago. It was a most dreadful accident. That does not necessarily make good law, but, assuming a passenger who is a driver is a responsible person, he may well be the person who will suffer the penalty.
	The penalty is derisory and ridiculous. It is a sticking point, to which I will return and divide the House because it is a point of principle. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 3 [Endorsement: all drivers]:

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 72, line 13, at end insert—
	"35A (1) Section 30 (modification of sections 28 and 29 in case where fixed penalty also in question) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(b)—
	(a) omit "the counterpart of his licence or", and
	(b) for "57, 57A, 77" substitute "57A".
	(3) In subsection (2)(b)—
	(a) omit "on the counterpart of his licence or", and
	(b) for "57, 57A, 77" substitute "57A"."

Baroness Crawley: In moving Amendment No. 29, I speak also to government Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32, which correct minor drafting errors and omissions in Schedule 3 to the Bill. Clauses 7, 8 and 9, together with Schedules 2 and 3, introduce a new system of endorsement of driving licence which, when extended to all drivers, will mean that the counterpart will no longer have any function, as we discussed earlier.
	As a result, Schedule 3 contains further legislative amendments about the endorsement of driving records in the case of all drivers, much of which is concerned with removing all references to the counterpart. The amendments ensure that all relevant legislative references are properly updated to take account of the provisions in the Bill concerning the new system of endorsement. I urge Members of the Committee to support the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Crawley: moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 32:
	Page 74, line 24, after "licence)"" insert "and for "his" substitute "the alleged offender's""
	Page 76, line 24, after "(interpretation)" insert "—
	(a) in the definition of "the provisions connected with the licensing of drivers", for "91ZA to 91B" substitute "91ZA, 91A", and
	(b) in the words following the definition of "the Traffic Acts""
	Page 79, line 23, leave out "subsection (3)(b)" insert "subsections (3)(b) and (4)(b)"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Financial penalty deposits]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 9, line 16, at end insert—
	"( ) that the person committing the offence is not normally resident in the United Kingdom,"

Baroness Hanham: Before turning to the amendment, perhaps I may put a question to the noble Baroness, or to the noble Lord if he is to respond to this amendment. I ask forgiveness if this is just ignorance, but it is an opportunity to put me right. In the new system of deposits, I am not clear who is entitled to collect them. My question is this. Are the people who issue the fixed penalties or the notices requiring the deposit able to collect them; that is, is a policeman or vehicle inspector able to take a deposit immediately? If so, that is a big step away from what we understand has been the position in the past.
	I preface my amendment with that question because it is relevant to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. They would limit the requirement for a deposit payment to a non-resident offender driving a vehicle registered abroad. They would also restrict such a requirement to an offender not normally resident in the United Kingdom.
	These amendments are designed to probe the Government on why they are making the ambit of the financial penalty deposit system set out in the clause much wider than any sensible justification for it would suggest. The justification for the system is that it would enable an enforcement authority to ensure that foreign drivers who break UK traffic laws with impunity can be dealt with expeditiously. That is to be welcomed. Some 44,000 offences committed by the drivers of foreign-registered vehicles went unpunished during the last year for which figures are available. That gives an idea of the extent of the problem.
	However, the Government are taking extra catch-all powers in the clause which can be used against United Kingdom citizens and residents and those with UK-registered vehicles, when in effect it deals only with foreign lorry drivers who break the law and commit other offences.
	We understand that there is little opportunity to catch those drivers and that a financial deposit scheme will be of only limited use. Indeed, the clause will not give immediate relief because nothing in it would ensure that the driver of a lorry that has triggered, say, a speed camera at a site where no one is present will be stopped. The lorry driver will not pay the penalty before he returns to the Continent, which is where most of the lorries come from. In that case, why do the Government intend to extend the scheme to local residents as well as foreigners?
	In view of the co-operation between EU member states in many areas, are not negotiations taking place on the matter? Can the Minister give a précis of the stage we have reached in achieving an agreement with our European partners on this problem?
	How will this clause be used in light of the real concerns about the growing problem of, for example, Travellers, many of whom do not have fixed addresses let alone roadworthy vehicles? Moreover, what exactly is meant by a "satisfactory address", and more to the point, how will the police decide whether it is satisfactory?
	That brings me back to my original point. If the police cannot take a deposit immediately, but still have to issue a notice to someone who will be on the ferry by the next night, it seems that the whole thing will be a complete waste of time. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is not the case, but perhaps he will enlighten me on these points. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: I share many of the concerns of my noble friend Lady Hanham, in particular with regard to taking cash at the side of the road. At the moment, if I see a policeman taking cash from a motorist, I know that something is going badly wrong. But, on the other hand, I do not see how the deposit system will work if he does not do so. No doubt the Minister will be able to help us.

Lord Berkeley: The problem of drivers who do not hold a British driving licence is serious, be they truck or car drivers. We hear stories of them not paying the congestion charge because no one can catch up with them. It is extraordinary that after all these years the European Union does not have a common clearing house for sorting out these problems. However, clearly we do not have one. Perhaps it is something for the British presidency to take up next month.
	Many people are fed up with the fact that if you hold a British driving licence you can be caught—admittedly quite rightly—for all kinds of offences, but if you have a foreign number plate or hold a foreign driving licence you can get away with it. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that only a couple of weeks ago a report in the press described a famous person driving a very fast British car on the French motorway on the way to his second or third home in Tuscany. He was stopped by the police for doing 150 or 180 kilometres per hour. He had to pay the best part of a €1,000 fine and had his licence taken away on the spot. The report ended by saying that his wife carried on driving the car. Even so, it must have been quite a shock. I do not know whether the French police take credit cards. I do not believe that they do so and I do not know whether we plan to. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, also asked that question.
	When it comes to things like this, we must ensure common treatment of everyone on the roads, be they British or foreigners. I hope that my noble friend can explain how that is to be done.

Lord Monson: I rise on this occasion to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The problems with foreign drivers are serious, as I know to my cost. I have mentioned this before in the House. On the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is right in saying that the French police can take cash from motorists. There is no problem about that. Ten years ago in Spain I was fined the equivalent of £20 for turning left when I should have turned right or something like that. Again, the fine could be paid in cash and I received a receipt. Unless the police can take cash, I do not see how this can be enforced. That possibility must be left open.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: I agree totally with every word of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We are caught for committing misdemeanours and we are fined, but they come over here and get away scot free.

Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may detain the Minister a moment with one tip from the Kent police. The police should turn off the air-conditioning system and take away the car keys. That has a salutary effect in producing the money on the spot.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Once again, if one listens long enough one gets the answers to all the questions. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, although I imagine that switching off the air-conditioning system is likely to be more effective at this time of the year than on others. However, the answer to the main question that has been put in our debate is that we want to treat all road users the same when hazardous or dangerous offences are committed. It does not matter where a person comes from. The issue is that an offence has been committed and we want to ensure that a punishment is dealt so as to improve driving behaviour. That is the whole point of this legislation. So the answer is yes. The vehicle examiners and the police will be able to take the deposit in cash on the spot. It will not work any other way, and that is the intention.
	The amendments would restrict that to only those who were registered abroad. We want everyone to have the same treatment. We recognise that there are difficulties with drivers from abroad, for all the reasons that have been clearly enunciated and defined in this debate. It can be difficult to trace people's temporary address in this country, or they can blissfully ignore the penalties once they are on the other side of the Channel where it is more easy to evade them.
	We want to make sure that we deal properly with offences. We intend to be quite clear about the action to be taken. If the address is not satisfactory, according to the enforcement agency, then a deposit will be required. I am sure that we all recognise the fairness of that.
	We are working on the principle which is expected from all our fellow citizens—that people who commit offences are treated in the same way for the offence, irrespective of where they reside. We intend to ensure that if there is uncertainty about the residence and the officer concerned is not sure that he would be able to pursue the case further effectively on the basis of the evidence submitted, cash will have to change hands as a deposit against that eventuality. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee: I think that the Committee will be very happy with the Minister's response. But is not the reality that he has to have these provisions in place? He cannot accept my noble friend's amendment for the simple reason that if he did, the Bill would not be compliant with EU competition law and a raft of other directives because it would be discriminatory against foreign drivers.

Lord Davies of Oldham: That is certainly so, but there is a plethora of reasons I could advance against the amendments. I was being, I hope, constructive in merely indicating that the amendment did not add to justice in these circumstances, which is the basis on which the legislation is being prepared.

Lord Bradshaw: I hope the noble Lord may be able to inform the Committee that any outstanding fines attributable to a driver or firm will also be collected and that in the event of a deposit or an address not being forthcoming, the vehicle will be detained. Unfortunately, you have to deal quite viciously with some of these people because they flout almost every law.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I do not think it is the role of officers to act viciously; they should act effectively. A vehicle is stopped for the driver to be interrogated and the circumstances to be determined. If the driver is not able to give the assurance that he is meeting his obligations, then the stopping of that vehicle continues.

Baroness Hanham: I have had an answer to at least some of my questions, particularly the one relating to vehicles of travellers, for example, who may not have a fixed address. They would be subject to these regulations in the same way as anybody else who does not give an address. That is recognised. I guess that Mickey Mouse of Neverland probably would not go down frightfully well.
	I am not sure under what legislation enforcement authorities, and that includes the police, are entitled to take cash against a fixed penalty in this country. I asked the Minister that question early on because I hoped that he would have the answer for me. They have to be empowered to take the money and issue receipts. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me what that legislation is, because I do not know. If it exists already, perhaps it should be referred to in the Bill.
	All subsection (4) of new section 90A says is that a satisfactory address is one at which,
	"the constable or vehicle examiner considers it likely that it would be possible to find the person whenever necessary to do so in connection with the proceedings, fixed penalty notice or conditional offer".
	It says nothing at any stage in Part 3A or under Clause 10 about officers being entitled to take money, in the form of a deposit, from people on the road. The Minister may have the answer to that; if not, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me with the details. In addition, what will the deposit amount to? Will it be the same as a fixed penalty charge or will it amount to the maximum penalty that can be imposed by the courts?
	There remain a lot of questions surrounding this. The Minister may be able to answer some of them. If he cannot, I would be grateful if he could write to me before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.37 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Sierra Leone

Lord Freeman: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what further plans they have to support the political, social and economic development of Sierra Leone.
	My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for coming to answer the debate. In her first few weeks on the Front Bench, I am sure she has been surprised to have to answer so many questions and debates. She is most welcome and I thank her. I also thank other noble Lords for participating in this debate.
	According to the Prime Minister, and I am sure he is right, 2005 is the year of Africa. It is the year in which we consider how we are to assist the development of sub-Saharan Africa in particular. Your Lordships' House has debated many times the general principles that should apply to aid and economic development for Africa. We wish the G8 all success in driving forward positive support for some of the poorest countries in the world.
	The purpose of this evening's debate is to look at one of the poorest countries in the world—Sierra Leone. According to the United Nations, it has the lowest GDP per head, based upon global statistics. So it is important to look not at the general principles but at practical reality—how we are helping this country regain the prosperity which it once, in relative terms, had.
	The United Kingdom has a unique and special responsibility to help and encourage Sierra Leone because of former historical connections with it. Your Lordships' House has consistently shown an interest in this country and others in sub-Saharan Africa in the past 200 years.
	Sierra Leone has made great progress since the end of a very bitter civil war in 2002. The United Nations has had a substantial force located in the country and the final remnants of that force will shortly leave. We should all pay tribute to the success of that initiative and I hope that the British Army's training mission in Sierra Leone will remain. It has done vital work training security forces and plans to stay almost indefinitely. I hope that resources will be available to ensure that.
	I wish to touch fairly briefly on three challenges facing the country: first, the elimination of corruption and the establishment of the rule of law; secondly, the correct use of aid, not just United Kingdom aid but that coming from the United Nations and many other donors; and finally, to applaud the steps taken so far to attract UK economic investment but raise some issues concerning that.
	On corruption, it is a necessary precondition for foreign direct investment in a country that the Government should be seen to be taking all possible steps to end corruption—not only among local officials and policemen but throughout government. I pay tribute to what has already been achieved under the leadership of President Kabbah and Vice-President Berewa. There is no doubt in my mind, having spoken to Ministers and visited the country—and I intend to keep on visiting the country—the Government are behind the removal of corruption. The Anti-Corruption Commission set up at the initiative of the President and the Government, recruiting special judges—some coming from the Commonwealth—has demonstrated that the Government mean business. That should continue.
	I am pleased that the special court is still in session to prosecute those who are alleged to have been involved in the civil war. Now that we have started proceedings at the special court, I hope that it can be funded to a successful conclusion, perhaps a year or 18 months hence. I am also pleased that, at long last, the Government are coming to grips with the diamond trade and legitimising it, increasing revenues and attracting the economic and political interest of the world in what must be one of the greatest economic prizes and resources of the country.
	My second point concerns the corrupt use of aid. DfID, both in London and in Sierra Leone, has achieved a great deal and I pay tribute to all the civil servants involved in establishing the 10-year programme with significant resources and those involved directly in trying to assist the Government. That is a tremendous credit to DfID.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to offer some words of encouragement about debt relief. Sierra Leone is on the second tier or list for debt relief. There are nine countries that will not benefit from immediate debt relief but may benefit in 12 months' time when all the necessary conditions are seen to have been fulfilled. Sierra Leone has debt of more than $1 billion. If the British Government are able to persuade other colleagues and nations to advance that relief, that would provide early and specific benefit.
	I make one plea about aid. Taking a leaf out of the book of European development over the past two or three centuries, we should look at direct assistance in transportation in addition to health and education, which are extremely important. The better construction of a road system or even a railway system, to return to what was in place 100 years ago, will help the economic development of the country, to which I turn as a final point.
	I declare an interest as the co-chairman of the UK-Sierra Leone Business Forum together with the Sierra Leone High Commissioner, Tejan-Jalloh, and pay tribute to him for the work that he has done in trying to attract interest from business and industry in the United Kingdom. Economic growth will alleviate poverty directly and quickly in the country. I am greatly concerned by the fact that there are apparently 2 million unemployed young people, many of whom were involved in the war and were injured. Apparently,
	"three quarters of 18–35 year-olds are unemployed".
	That could be a recipe for disaster unless economic growth provides early and rapid employment.
	The Minister for Trade and Industry, Mrs Sesay, has vigorously introduced the Investment Programme Act, which provides investment incentives for companies coming into the country. Also, under her leadership, there has been a study by the World Bank and DfID to look at how commercial law, protection of IP rights and competition law can be reviewed to encourage investment. Under her leadership I hope that before too long we will see real benefits. The privatisation commission—early candidates being the banks, forestry and ports—has in its grasp the unique ability to draw in not only foreign operators for some of these great previously state assets, but cash. There are other obvious areas for investment—minerals, oil and gas, agribusiness and tourism.
	Finally, let us not forget the diaspora of Sierra Leoneans who live in this country are increasingly looking not only to increase remittances back to the country but to go back and work there. The Commonwealth Business Council has begun to take the initiative by arranging a conference in Freetown in March next year to encourage the diaspora and foreign businesses to invest in the country.
	If Japan, China and South Africa now feel that it is sensible and wise to invest in Sierra Leone, for heaven's sake, the United Kingdom, with its great and historical obligations to the country, should follow. My message to UK business and industry is to wake up. We are respected as businessmen. We are needed and wanted in Sierra Leone, so let us go to it. To quote the sentence used by the President and Vice-President:
	"Sierra Leone is back in business".

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I very much welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, with his very close interest and knowledge of Sierra Leone, in putting down this dinner-break debate. Africa is a key priority of the presidency, which starts next week and leads to what is described by the Council of Ministers in a document adopted only a couple of weeks ago as a comprehensive strategy for Africa to be adopted by the Council in December 2005.
	As a case study, we could do worse than to see how one or two elements could fit Sierra Leone and how, for example, some of the problems and opportunities in Sierra Leone could inform this grand strategy.
	I do not go along with those people who say that there is no such place as Africa: it is too abstract. Clearly, one has to have policies for the whole of Africa. Equally, they must be tested against the realities of the specific.
	I have no current interest in Sierra Leone, but I worked briefly in Sierra Leone in 1961, which is some time ago. This was before Siaka Stevens became President for all those years. He had been a railway trade union leader and got a TUC scholarship to Ruskin College, Oxford. When I worked there, it was a different era, one year after independence.
	We have to cite one or two of the realities about corruption in informing what we do about it. Quite an interesting quote comes from an organisation called the Sierra Leone National Accountability Group—I do not know what that is—which suggested something along the lines of, "If you are in a government office and you don't steal, your whole family gets angry with you". Interestingly enough, in his autobiography, written in 1984, Siaka Stevens makes a similar point. He says that people in most African countries are in a different position, because—in a nutshell—the political classes have no different living standards from other people. He says that,
	"the African tradition being what it is, men from villages who have achieved prominence in the capital thanks to the support of their fellow villagers, would be expected to reciprocate the help received from their local constituents"—
	in the rural areas—
	"at least by feeding them and looking after them when they arrive in the big city. Frequently, they would also be expected to help them financially, support their applications for jobs or favours and provide some presents for their families.
	"Thus, when one of these men is elected to political office, he does not merely change his job, but also his lifestyle . . . But"—
	and this is the key point—
	"the process is hardly reversible. Human nature being what it is, it would be unrealistic to expect a man who has spent some years as an adopted member of the modern, affluent society to return suddenly to a rural African environment which may have remained unchanged since medieval times. Can one tell such a man: 'Your time is up; forget all about your government-leased five-room house, your bathroom, your car, your refrigerator, your electronic gadgets; remove your children from the private school and your shoes from your socked feet; tell your wife to forget about the supermarket and go back to the village'."
	I quote that because I believe that it is extraordinarily difficult to grasp—and frankly a reflection of world income inequalities—that expatriates have a living standard at least 1,000 times that of the average African village. Therefore, side by side with this emphasis on transparency, which is vital, we have to be seen to be partners in ensuring that that kind of disparity cannot continue.
	This raises the question of interference in the internal affairs of member states. Interestingly enough, I may quote Stevens in that regard, as he was to my knowledge, in August 1972, the first African leader to write a letter to Idi Amin, in which he said:
	"I realise that one of the fundamental tenets is that no nation should interfere in the internal affairs of other nations".
	Now the African Union has changed from the doctrine of non-interference to one of non-indifference. One can see Siaka Stevens warts and all, and I do not know too much about his reputation now, but I was interested to see from his autobiography that he wrote that critical letter to Idi Amin in August 1972.
	We can avoid being accused of neo-colonialism if we do more things through the African Union. Our committee is looking at relations between the European Union and the African Union to try to get behind some of the benchmarks. It is an excellent agenda, and I hope that Sierra Leone can be a case study in how to reconcile some of the problems that we have mentioned.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, is right in saying that 2005 is the year of Africa. I join in thanking him for having given us the chance to debate the current opportunities and the challenges facing Sierra Leone.
	There are common themes between today's debate and our debate last week on the Africa Commission report. Her Majesty's Government have played a pivotally important role in helping to end the conflict and re-establishing peace and stability in Sierra Leone. That has been reinforced by the 10-year agreement signed in November 2002, which seeks to promote and reinforce security sector reform, governance reform, decentralisation, public financial management, diamond sector reform, anti-corruption measures, private sector development and budgetary support. Over the past three years, DfID has committed £120 million to that agreement.
	The raw statistics relating to poverty and unemployment; the country's infrastructure, which was destroyed during the conflict; life expectancy, which is under the age of 40; and the political upheavals make depressing reading. David White said, in his lead article for the Financial Times report on Sierra Leone earlier this year:
	"Sierra Leone is gradually getting back on its feet after 11 years of havoc. Roads, schools and clinics have been rebuilt. Sierra Leone has become a test case for the rehabilitation of failed states. Sierra Leone's backers can not afford for it to go wrong".
	There is no denying that a huge amount has been achieved in the past three years in re-establishing political and social security, but the biggest challenge is economic development. There cannot be sustainable political stability without economic stability and growth. The country can not survive on aid alone; there has to be aid with trade.
	Sierra Leone's tradition of high education standards has been eroded in the past two decades, and it is a chilling fact that almost two-thirds of the population are now illiterate. Clearly, one of the biggest challenges for Sierra Leone will be the creation of employment opportunities for the youth and the women of that country.
	The large reduction in the United Nations peace-keeping presence and the departure of many emergency relief NGOs has had a knock-on effect on the job and leisure market. Jobs in the service sector that once catered for the huge number of foreign UN and aid workers are being lost daily—in the hotel industry, in restaurants, for drivers, and so on. The problem is that very few jobs are being created by the private sector to replace these lost jobs. That is, to a large measure, the result of the absence of a formal small and medium-sized enterprise sector in Sierra Leone, and it is on the SME sector that I shall focus my few remaining remarks today.
	There are thousands of informal sector traders on the streets of Freetown, Bo, Koidu and Makeni, hawking cheap imported goods, mostly from China, but they do not generate wealth, pay taxes or create jobs. The absence of SMEs is the result, to a large degree, of a totally inadequate local banking system in Sierra Leone. To my knowledge, there is no way in which businesses with proper business plans can secure any reasonable or timely bank financing.
	I heard recently of an expatriate who was looking to establish a quarry business for dimension stone needing about $2 million to get under way. It would have employed approximately 50 people and supported extended families of up to five to 10 times that number. He was unable to get the banking finance. The nearest World Bank office is located in Abidjan, in Ivory Coast, and does not cater for Sierra Leone, its focus being on French as opposed to English Africa. Can the Minister give any indication of what measures, if any, Her Majesty's Government are taking to promote private sector Development and, more specifically, the growth of SMEs in Sierra Leone? There is also no equity venture capital available to fund start-up businesses. Therefore, SMEs, considered by the West as the engines of job creation, are non-existent in Sierra Leone, and there appears to be no effective plan to cultivate them.
	A second employer could be the massive infrastructure programmes under way in the country, in particular road building. One of the biggest contractors in the field is a Senegalese firm. I understand that it is in fact constructing poor quality roads, with poor road beds and very thin layers of asphalt. It employs few locals. Why not hire Sierra Leonean youth en masse to prepare road beds instead of using entirely mechanized means? That would create large-scale employment and a sense of self-worth and accomplishment in the youth, freeing them from the begging bowl.
	I am delighted that His Excellency the Vice-President of Sierra Leone and the Minister of Trade and Industry have been able to attend this time-limited debate and that they will both address the seminar at Chatham House this Thursday. I believe that there is an ever-increasing inward investment interest in Sierra Leone, in a country that is certainly one of the jewels of Africa.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, Sierra Leone had rather dropped out of the headlines since the remarkably successful armed intervention put an end to the war, so we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for calling attention to this interesting and, many think, hopeful country in spite of its traumatic recent history.
	I say "many think" because I should perhaps declare a small interest in that my daughter worked for a time at the special court trying the war criminals. She spoke to me of the commitment of local people and of the much richer diaspora to rebuild, as the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, pointed out. I do not intend to focus on the special court, but I would like to say something about the domestic justice system as a key part of civil society.
	A war-torn country needs, as the noble Lord said, investment in its infrastructure, its underfunded schools and clinics and its enterprise. But to give it the confidence to grow, it also needs to rebuild a sense of wholesomeness—a sense of normal security and fair operation of services. For those, the justice system has to work.
	There was evidence that women, children and poor people suffered disproportionately from crime and that many had no affordable or accessible way to get grievances against those in authority dealt with. There is a customary law system, but that does not always meet the needs of women and young people. The Sierra Leone Government are committed to restoring the rule of law and to providing safety and security for their citizens, and they should be congratulated on making the reform of justice a priority. They asked DfID to support an ambitious justice sector development programme, based on human rights, ranging from training the police and judges to reforming the law itself, with extra staff for the anti-corruption commission. I am proud that we have responded to that sensible call and have committed large funds to it.
	Sierra Leone has special advantages on which to build the programme now. It is the right time for investment in justice. There are expert, legally qualified people from many countries there because of the special court who want to help and who are willing to give their time. It has a good professional cadre of lawyers and a distinguished university—Fourah Bay, the first in Africa—all desperately short of salaries, equipment and books, but with the intellectual capacity and motivation that can profit from support. The highly skilled Sierra Leone diaspora is beginning to return, but, for instance, there are no published law reports. I hope that some of our £25 million might go on that small prerequisite for judicial precedent, on which all common law justice is based.
	A justice system is in a way the backbone of civil society, without which voluntary efforts and individual initiatives fail to contribute permanently to the shape of a culture. When there is a justice system, voluntary effort and individual initiatives are what make it all come alive. Here, Sierra Leone also has its own advantages and matching links with the United Kingdom. The advantages are the people—ready for change, open to initiative and positive, even those who suffered the psychological damage of being child soldiers.
	Sierra Leone's close western friend, Britain, happens to have one of the largest voluntary sectors in the world. It is no surprise that some are engaged in working with young Sierra Leoneans. My honourable friend Michael Foster MP has one such in his constituency of Hastings, linked with Hastings in Sierra Leone, which has worked with local people, sending out an engineer to help plan a community centre and rebuild the town's bridges.
	I will also mention a large organisation of which I have just become the patron—Students Partnership Worldwide—which has been invited by the Ministry of Youth and Sport to run a national programme to train young adults as volunteer peer educators and advocates for about 50,000 of their fellows—following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman—to draw them out of their violent past into becoming active citizens, improving services, making informed choices about livelihoods and understanding how to avoid HIV/AIDS. Students Partnership Worldwide does that with a handful of staff, mainly Sierra Leonean, and a large number of Sierra Leonean volunteers.
	The Government are not often praised for being sensitive, but I think that DfID is sensitive in funding that work, making space for the young people of Sierra Leone to grow in civic engagement, with help from the energy and experience of our own voluntary sector. The work at the intersection of international aid, national government and civil society—our own as well as Sierra Leone's—is path-breaking, and I hope that its lessons will be communicated.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Freeman for introducing the debate, especially as I had the privilege of accompanying him to Sierra Leone on a CPA delegation and also because I have worked in Sierra Leone as a surgeon on Mercy Ships on many occasions in the past few years.
	It has been mentioned several times before but bears repetition that 2,000 British troops and a Royal Navy warship came to Sierra Leone at the height of the troubles and not only restored and maintained peace but did so much more besides in helping the people of Sierra Leone rebuild their lives and infrastructure. They helped to restore homes, schools and clinics and were much admired at that time. The only sad thing about all that is that it did not seem to feature much in the British media. There seems to be a great reluctance to broadcast good news.
	We ought to bear it in mind that the gradual withdrawal of most of the United Nations peacekeepers in 2004 and early this year, the deteriorating political and economic conditions in Guinea and the tenuous security situation in Liberia, where I have been recently, may present challenges to Sierra Leone's stability. Therefore, continued support is absolutely vital.
	One of the problems that has been highlighted on many occasions is how to find suitable people and organisations to whom to give the aid to distribute to people who really need it. Ann Gloag of Stagecoach experienced that difficulty in several other countries in Africa and worked out the best theoretical way of delivering her financial help to the poorest in Africa. She decided to have her own hospital ship and her own staff and to visit ports around the African continent. That was feasible because, as your Lordships know, two-thirds of the world's population live within 100 miles of a port city.
	Having settled the problem theoretically, she was introduced to the charity, Mercy Ships, which has three hospital ships visiting the poorest countries in the world, staying in port for anything up to seven months and doing the kind of operations not readily available to those we serve. Thanks to Ann's generous donation, a hospital ship was bought and is now in Newcastle being equipped. It should be ready to sail by the end of the year.
	Many of the situations that we meet in west Africa are remarkable indeed. For instance, I was there a few weeks ago when twin boys aged two came on board the ship. They had been blind since birth due to cataracts and had never walked. The operation was successful and, when the bandages were removed the following day, they were able to see for the first time. The amazed expression on their faces was really wonderful. As a result of the operation, the brothers were able to walk almost immediately. The end of the story is that by the next day the most normal of two year-old boy behaviour was resumed and they began to fight each other.
	One of the three ships, "MV Anastasis", has visited Sierra Leone on four occasions in the past nine years, amounting to more than two years of free healthcare. The most recent visit was for seven months, with the ship carrying out thousands of operations. Not only are the operations free but the 400 volunteers on board actually pay for their food and keep—that includes the captain.
	Of course, it is not enough to go to the countries in Africa and supply the sort of treatment that we do; it is essential also to train the local doctors and nurses in techniques with which they are unfamiliar. By the same token, nurses and healthcare workers go out into the villages, teaching preventive medicine and dentistry and teach the local people to do the teaching. Local people will listen to local teachers, whereas sometimes they are not so keen to listen to those from abroad. My experience of local teachers is that they have tremendous talent and really keep the attention of those they are teaching.
	The engineers help the local people reopen old wells and dig new ones and help them construct buildings such as clinics, a rehabilitation centre in Freetown and a mothers and babies unit. Also, a small hospital was donated by an oil company to enable doctors to operate on some of the 3 million ladies in Africa who have been rendered incontinent as a result of unsupervised labour.
	It is, of course, vital to do the work with local people and not just for them, so that they have ownership. Reliable United Nations research has proved that capacity building will have a lasting benefit only if the local people actually want it. It is no good going into a country and telling people what they need and supplying it if they really do not want it. It is vital that they want it and have ownership of it, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government keep that in mind when supporting similar projects in Sierra Leone.
	Such examples of the sterling work conducted by our British troops are an important illustration of the efforts made each day to stabilise Sierra Leone as quickly as possible. The medical work and micro-finance projects being conducted highlight how great the need for continued help and support from Her Majesty's Government really is. The fate of Sierra Leone's economy depends on the maintenance of domestic peace and the continued receipt of substantial aid from abroad, which is essential to offset the severe trade imbalance and to supplement government revenues. One looks forward to hearing about the work that Her Majesty's Government have planned to conduct in that area.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for providing the first opportunity since the election to debate the help that Britain is giving to Sierra Leone. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on the wonderful work that Mercy Ships are doing. Not only he but all his hundreds of colleagues give their voluntary labour, which is absolutely fantastic.
	The jury is still out on Sierra Leone, as Chris Mullin said in March. We have made a major investment in rebuilding the country, but it remains in a very fragile state. The Secretary-General's latest report to the Security Council showed how much remains to be done before the Sierra Leone armed forces are fully capable of discharging their responsibilities. It will be 2007 before the troop strength is reduced to the planned level of 10,500; and 2010 before they have barracks in which to house them. There are shortages of transport and communications equipment despite some generous donations by a number of countries, including the UK. The army's existing transport fleet is largely inoperable. Does the training that we are helping to provide include the repair and maintenance of mechanical, electrical and electronic equipment?
	The build-up of the police is also delayed by the shortage of resources. The target of 9,500 trained police officers by the end of 2005 is not going to be achieved, and it would be useful to know what the plans are now. Accommodation for police in the provinces is a problem, but not the only one. In Makeni and Magburaka there are police barracks, yet when Charles Margai, aspirant for the presidency of the ruling SLPP, went there last week he was mobbed and intimidated by bikers who were said to have been paid by the Resident Minister to prevent him holding meetings. Makeni is APC territory—unimportant in the SLPP leadership contest—so the inability of the police to ensure freedom of assembly there does not augur well for the 2007 elections.
	I welcome the appointment of Christiana Thorpe to head the National Electoral Commission and her restructuring programme to withdraw government employees from the commission. Are we helping to ensure that, unlike in 2002, the registration centres are evenly deployed throughout the country? The Commonwealth Secretariat, and in the US the National Democratic Institute, put a lot of effort into the National Election Watch coalition, which last time had 2,000 observers at both presidential and parliamentary elections. The creation of indigenous non-governmental mechanisms for oversight of the whole electoral process is the best hope for a culture of democracy to flourish in Sierra Leone. Will the UK encourage that process in the run-up to 2007?
	I have two more points. First, the noble Lord, Lord St. John, mentioned investment. The World Bank recently approved a $30 million economic rehabilitation and recovery credit to Sierra Leone, and the country director, while praising the "remarkable resurrection of agriculture", mentioned land tenure as one of the issues still needing attention. It is a political hot potato that the government have so far failed to grasp since the interim PSRP promised "a fundamental review" in June 2001. A uniform national system of land tenure is urgently needed to replace the ramshackle and overlapping legal regimes that deter major investment in agriculture. Is there any UK involvement in that process? Will part of the money being provided by the World Bank be used for that purpose?
	Secondly, there is the widely ignored evil of female genital mutilation, which has not yet been mentioned. The UN Rapporteur on Violence against Women reported in 2002 that 89 per cent of women and girls had undergone the procedure as part of a ritual initiation into women's secret societies. It is a painful operation, performed without anaesthetic, and it may cause lifelong health problems. Sierra Leone is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and has reported once, in 1996, without mentioning FGM. It also ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1988, but like many other African countries it has yet to report.
	The problem is that, bizarre as it may seem, FGM is popular in Sierra Leone. The president's late wife Patricia sponsored 1,500 young girls for circumcision during the presidential campaign of 2002, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Gender and Child Protection has threatened to "sew up the mouths" of people who speak against FGM. Are we supporting the brave NGOs such as the Katanya Women's Development Association and the Centre for Safe Motherhood which are nevertheless campaigning to stop that loathsome practice? Will the Government lobby others to do the same?
	Sierra Leone musicians are performing at a Freetown concert on Friday to demand that Sierra Leone's remaining $1.7 billion debt should be written off. Their leader, Daddy Saj, the foremost rap artist in Sierra Leone, says that they will be paying off the enormous debt for ever if they do not get further relief. As the Make Poverty History campaign points out, creditors said seven years ago that they would cancel unpayable poor country debts. It would be a tremendous boost to the morale of Sierra Leone, still one of the poorest countries in the world, as has been said, if the people attending the concert were to receive a message of hope and encouragement from our Prime Minister. He may not have the power to wipe out the debt but, with the presidency of the G8 and the EU, he could pledge that he would go into bat for them at Gleneagles and in Brussels.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, like others, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Freeman for promoting the debate. For once, we have the beginnings of a good story coming out of Africa, because a genuine degree of stability has been achieved under the guidance of President Kabbah and his Ministers in what was a war-torn country. We should be thankful for that.
	In the language of the Government themselves, a significant degree of progress has been achieved. I think that that means that the poverty reduction programme is on track and that DfID continues to focus support extremely effectively. One looks with pride on what has been achieved by this country in helping Sierra Leone back to recovery. That has been backed up by training programmes for the police and military, staffed predominantly by British officers. Again, that makes one proud. I pay tribute, as others have done, to those who have participated in the now withdrawing UN forces, and to those of our troops and Navy who did so well in the original involvement. As my noble friend Lord McColl reminds us, they did far more than restore security, providing the foundations for recovery.
	All that is heartening and brings home, to me at any rate, the point that the focus should be on individual countries and specific needs of particular areas and regions. I am sorry if I do not carry the noble Lord, Lord Lea, with me, but it also brings home the danger of talking about Africa in too-general terms. I cannot emphasise too strongly that high-flown demands for still more aid are not the answer; they may even be part of the problem. The answers lie in: the direction of focus, as we have focused ourselves in Sierra Leone; open trade; good governance; of course, the end of corruption; the rule of law; and the promotion of enterprise, innovation and small business, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, rightly said.
	Sir Bob Geldof and his celebrities, with their views and enthusiasm, can be forgiven for not understanding the finer points. However, our policy experts, officials and Ministers should guide their policy by the kind of lessons that we are learning in Sierra Leone, not by generalities.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords—

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I simply do not have the time. I shall have a drink with the noble Lord afterwards; that is the best thing.
	In my few minutes, I would like to ask more about the Chinese involvement. China seems to be moving into Africa in a colonising way everywhere, partly in a search for oil and commodities, without being much noticed by the West. The penetration is enormous in many countries, and Sierra Leone is one. I would like to know more about how the special court and the truth and reconciliation commission are getting on, and the chances of getting Messrs Taylor and Koroma before the commission. Obviously, we would like to know how progress is being made in tying up the diamond marketing—getting away from the conflict diamonds, and getting rid of the illegitimate forces influencing the control of diamond areas.
	I would like to add a string of questions, and I shall try to allow the Minister time to answer them. Are we still supporting the African agricultural technology project, and how is that going? What are we doing about employment projects for ex-combatants? There are a lot of problems in re-employing those people. How is the land development project going, given that agriculture was so badly damaged and reduced during the horrific war, although it is now recovering?
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly mentioned the position of women, who seem to be the victims of terror, insecurity and war around the whole world, particularly in parts of Africa and in Sierra Leone. That really is the key to a more peaceful and sensibly managed future for Sierra Leone and many other countries. I would like to hear from the Minister about that.
	The machinery of government is also in some difficulties. I am told that President Kabbah and his Ministers are vastly overworked and overloaded with inadequate staffing procedures and support. I understand that British officials have been supplying useful support for that. I should like to hear a little more.
	I have moved so quickly that I have a minute and a half left and I shall allow the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, to intervene, after all. Does he wish to do so?

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am most grateful. I think that we are on the same side. I was saying that grand strategies must be tested against specific examples. Could not Sierra Leone be a good case study to ensure that the European Union, in drawing up its programme for the end of the year, gets to see how the matter relates to specifics? That was my point.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, that point was perfectly fair, to which my answer is, maddeningly, yes and no. Sierra Leone faced unique problems that required unique solutions of the type that we have heard this evening. Some broader lessons are to be learnt, but I cannot emphasise too strongly that Africa constitutes a variety of political, social, economic problems and needs to be treated with the sensitivity and precision of the surgeon, rather than the blunderbuss.
	This has been an excellent little debate. For me, Sierra Leone was, until recently, a tragedy and now we hope that out of tragedy a bright new star will appear. There is a real chance that it could.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for this opportunity to discuss our support for Sierra Leone and to other noble Lords for their contributions. This debate has, indeed, shown the extent of informed interest in and commitment to Sierra Leone's interests in this House. I would like to commend, particularly, the support that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, has given to the country as a member of the all-party group and through his personal interventions. He has facilitated presentations by the government of Sierra Leone in Britain on investment opportunities and has worked directly with the Department for International Development in supporting the National Commission on Privatisation. I am also grateful for his kind comments about DfID. I thank him for his wake-up call to British industry.
	I am also honoured by the presence of the vice-president and the Minister at this debate and I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development will meet them tomorrow. I shall reply in writing to any questions to which I do not respond this evening. I wholeheartedly agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, regarding the media's reluctance to cover "good news" especially the good news that he brought us about the excellent work of Mercy Ships and the talents of local teachers. Yes, of course, local people must take ownership of what they are doing and DfID's intention all the time is to work with local people.
	The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, asked about aid. Sierra Leone will be eligible to benefit from the G8 finance Ministers' agreement, once it reaches completion. That is normally one year after a poverty reduction strategy is agreed.
	The first and over-riding requirement since 2002 has been security. As the report of the Commission for Africa points out, without it, there can be no development. We have committed a large part of our programme to security sector reform. The International Military Advisory and Training Team (IMATT) is helping to train the armed forces, as many noble Lords have said. We have made a major investment in reforming and equipping the police and we are helping to strengthen a politically impartial intelligence system. Much has been achieved and the UK has agreed a strategy for the period up to 2010 with IMATT. A critical period is ahead, because all UNAMSIL peacekeeping troops will leave at the end of the year.
	I fully endorse the view of my noble friend Lady Whitaker that justice is a key part of a healthy civil society, because, of course, security and justice are inextricably linked. I also agree that the publication of law reports is desirable and I understand that the justice sector development programme will examine that.
	The UK is far and away the biggest bilateral donor. We have emphasised the commitment of Britain to Sierra Leone through the 10-year memorandum of understanding that we signed at the end of 2002. It commits DfID to providing £120 million in bilateral aid over the first three years. This figure does not include the substantial cost of IMATT, which is British-led and mostly British staffed, nor does it include our share of UNAMSIL.
	The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, asked about three areas of development. Let me first turn to the crucial issue of economic development, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso. At present, half the government budget in Sierra Leone is provided by donors. It is essential that the economy grows and that it provides jobs for the growing number of unemployed and, in some cases, disaffected youths, who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman. Labour demonstrations and student unrest at the beginning of this year were warning signs. As the noble Lord, Lord St John, also mentioned, women need jobs.
	We have joined forces with the World Bank Group's Foreign Investment Advisory Service to address barriers to private sector development and to provide support to the Ministry of Trade and the National Commission on Privatisation. This is an essential plank of support to SMEs. We are also supporting SME training through conciliation resources focused on young people and we have helped to provide micro-credit through the campaign for good governance. We are planning support for a national private sector development policy and for reform of business law, and we have made encouraging contacts with the diaspora in this country. This is a critical area of activity, as the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned. Diamonds have been mentioned several times. I am delighted to say that income tax on diamond exports has increased from $3 million in 2000 to $126 million in 2004. This has been a vital boost to the economy.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, informed us, Sierra Leone occupies bottom place in the UN Human Development Index. Child and maternal mortality rates are amongst the highest in the world and government services are greatly under-funded. However, a major development has been the completion of a poverty reduction strategy. It sets out the Government's plans for the allocation of domestic and external resources to areas directly related to poverty reduction, including health and education. The strategy is supported by the donor community, including the World Bank and IMF. It will be discussed with donors at a consultative group meeting later this year and will be the foundation not only of Government policy, but also of donor support. We are reviewing our own programmes in the light of the strategy.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the case of Charles Taylor. We continue to believe that Charles Taylor should face justice in the special court. His surrender would be in the long-term interest of regional stability and would be an important step towards ending the culture of impunity. We would prefer it if President Obasanjo gave Taylor up to the court voluntarily and we continue to raise the issue with the Nigerian Government.
	The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the important question of female genital mutilation. We are supporting an Oxfam women in leadership programme. It does not direct address FGM, but it is empowering women and addressing a range of women's issues.
	The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Howell, also mentioned land tenure and national elections. I am happy to confirm that we are assisting the commission to restructure, and we are committed to supporting the 2007 elections. On land tenure, I understand that the Government of Sierra Leone have carried out a study on this important issue through the law reform commission. It is a key issue, especially in private sector development.
	The restoration of democratic government has been a key achievement of the current administration. For our part, we have been the principal funders of the 2002 presidential and national elections and of last year's local elections, which were the first for 32 years. We are also developing a programme of support to strengthen parliamentary committees to provide oversight of the Executive. But, of course, political development is very much in the hands of the Sierra Leone authorities. The overwhelmingly important issue, which was raised by many noble Lords, is corruption. Surveys have shown that people believe that corruption continues unchecked and that, ominously, they consider it to be the biggest threat to the country's security.
	We are the main supporter of Sierra Leone's public commitment to the fight against corruption. We have given extensive support to the Anti-Corruption Commission. With the Commonwealth secretariat, we have helped to provide expatriate judges to clear the backlog of corruption cases in the justice system and two special prosecutors for corruption cases.
	However, the key to all this is political will. Unless there is a complete change of heart among those with influence in society, and a turning away from habitual patterns of corrupt behaviour, there is, indeed, a serious threat to the security of the country.
	The people of Sierra Leone expect a real change of attitude at the top of their society. They clearly do not think that it has occurred. The consequences of that are potentially disastrous.
	We are Sierra Leone's closest friends. Our commitment is manifestly strong and for the long term. But the biggest threat to the achievements of the administration, and our investment in the restoration of development programmes, is the pervasive and corrosive issue of corruption. The great achievement of the past five years has been the restoration of security.
	The next big step from that should be towards the millennium development goals. The obstacle, not only in our view but also that of the people of Sierra Leone, is pervasive corruption. That is the biggest current and future issue. It is one in which political will is more important than the entire combined efforts of donors.
	I make no secret of the fact that there have been difficult exchanges with the Sierra Leone government on this issue. If the Government take the steps needed, they will have the full support of the United Kingdom.
	In answer to my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall, the Government fully agree that we in the EU should work much more closely with the African Union on this and other issues.
	In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about aid, of course aid is part of a package. It must go hand in hand with trade and debt relief. Those three things form the basis of the view of the Commission for Africa. We believe the way forward is to work with these three key objectives.
	Sierra Leone has the opportunity to become a symbol of recovery from the worst kind of conflict. But there must be a complete rejection of the culture of corruption. We must not let Sierra Leone's recent history be repeated because of lack of attention to the social injustices that allowed so many people to be exploited. Its people deserve better.

Road Safety Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 10.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 9, leave out line 40.

Baroness Hanham: Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are put forward to try to tackle the scourge of legislation by statutory instrument, although we welcome the Government's amendment to that effect that we have already dealt with.
	I ask the Minister to give us a clear explanation of how much deposit we are talking about. I touched on the issue on the previous amendment. There is no indication in the legislation whether that deposit is meant to be a proportion of any fixed penalty, the equivalent of a fixed penalty, a proportion of the maximum penalty that can be charged, or the maximum penalty itself. Will the Minister give us any indication about that? If we are not careful this will be another area where we will spend an enormous amount of time quizzing the Government about whether they are raising revenue for other purposes or whether there is a proper rationale to the decisions being made.
	That brings us back to the question I asked at the end of the previous amendment about where was the legislation that enabled enforcement officers, whether police or others, to take money from motorists. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: First of all, I wish to allay the noble Baroness's suspicions: this provision is not about revenue raising; it is about an appropriate sanction to ensure compliance with the law. I cannot be drawn on the amount of the deposit because it would cross neither our mind nor that of any noble Lord concerned with legislation to include such a figure in a Bill. First, it is far too detailed, and, secondly, we do not know how long the currency of the figure would last against the background that we expect the legislation to be in place for a number of years.
	I am not to be drawn on the issue of the deposit but I shall seek to give the noble Baroness another assurance. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform viewed the matter as so important that we should undertake to make it the subject of secondary legislation through an affirmative order. I am happy to confirm that we will comply with that recommendation. When we debate the affirmative order we will have the opportunity to debate the appropriateness of the figure at which the deposit should be set.
	In the previous debate I wanted to reassure noble Lords that we intend the legislation to work, and it is therefore necessary to set the deposit at a level that results in compliance with the requirements. I also confirmed that the legislation contains the innovative but nevertheless clear principle that enforcement officers would have the right to enforce the deposit and take cash for it. I even assured the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on his question whether there was any reason, if people did not comply with the law and a vehicle was stopped, the driver could legitimately go on his way.
	We are reasonably watertight on the issue, save for the figure of the deposit. That is a subject for extensive consultation and for an instrument to be laid before this House and the other place. We will have plenty of time to discuss the appropriateness of the figure.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am also grateful for his confirmation that there are clauses—I think he said in this legislation—to enable enforcement officers to take deposits from offenders at the time the offence is committed. I have not gone through the Bill clause by clause and schedule by schedule but it would be extremely helpful if the Minister could point me in the direction of the provision that says that. It may be understood but so far it is not implicit that that is the situation. If it is to be the situation, it needs to be made very clear in legislation that that is proposed.
	I am grateful for the indication that the secondary legislation by affirmative procedure will indicate what the deposit should be and how any increases or changes to it will take place. The Minister did not say that but I assume that it will be part of the legislation. On the basis of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]

Lord Lyell: If Amendment No. 37 were agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendments Nos. 38 and 39.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 11, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 12.

Baroness Hanham: In moving Amendment No. 37, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 41. We welcome the clause but, once again and as always, only if the powers are fairly used. I am trying to elicit from the Minister—who is very straightforward in his replies so I am sure I will get it—a little more detail of how the clause will work in practice.
	As we see it, proposed new Section 90D would enable the police or vehicle examiners to prohibit the movement of the vehicle if the deposit is not paid immediately and this would continue in force until the owner pays. What would happen if individuals were unable to pay immediately—always presuming that the legislation is there to ensure that they are able to pay immediately—either through not having sufficient funds on them at the time or simply through not having sufficient funds? In those circumstances, the vehicle in question would be taken away and considerable sums in removal and storage charges would then be run up to such an extent that the costs might actually be greater than any fine.
	Surely there must be some flexibility in the system to allow a person to come back the next day and pay the fine when he has managed to get the cash together. What opportunity will the police have to use their own discretion and judgment in such matters?
	How much is it anticipated this additional bureaucracy will cost? Will it be self-financing? If it is, once again we are in danger of the scheme being used as income generation; if it is not, there will be a suspicion that it is.
	Amendment No. 41 is intended to ensure that any removal direction imposed on the motorist is reasonable. It is a wide clause. I refer the Committee to page 12 of the Bill, where it states that a constable has the right to prohibit a person from driving if he has been stopped and fails to make a payment. I can understand why that may be necessary, but the constable can prohibit the person from driving on a road,
	"any vehicle of which the person was in charge at the time of the offence by giving to the person notice in writing of the prohibition".
	However, the provision goes on to state:
	"A constable or vehicle examiner may by direction in writing require the person to remove the vehicle to which the prohibition relates . . . to such place and subject to such conditions as are specified in the direction".
	We can understand why this may be necessary. It could well be that the vehicle in its position is causing an obstruction. However, when the police make such a direction, it should be fair and it should not directly result in the person who has committed an offence being subjected to a huge cost. I am thinking of a scenario in which a policeman tells the person in charge of the vehicle to remove it to, say, an inner London car compound which happens to be next to a perfectly acceptable car park where the charges are £10 a day, whereas the compound charges £80 a day for the storage of vehicles. If the police officer were to make such a direction, the driver who had committed the offence could face storage charges of up to five times the fixed penalty that he has not paid. Would that be reasonable?
	Many questions are raised by the whole issue of deposits and my next one I have asked before. It concerns the costs of the bureaucracy and people's ability to go and collect the money if we are now satisfied that they will be able to pay the police directly. Are we to have visions of the Prime Minister's last frolic into this area, where it was suggested that people should be taken down to the local cash machine to collect money in order to pay fines for hooliganism. If you are going to have to pay a deposit, access to money is another important area in terms of fairness and how it will be managed.
	I have made our position clear. I beg to move.

Lord Bradshaw: Members of the Committee should give particular attention to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. At present, when the police detain a vehicle, it has to be removed to a place of safe storage. It cannot just be parked out in the open. It has to be taken, often under cover, to a place where it costs money. It is important that costs are recovered from the owner of the vehicle.
	On detaining a vehicle that has brought peaches from Spain or meat from Ireland, we are talking about a vehicle that probably contains goods worth £10,000 or £20,000, apart from the cost of the vehicle. It is important that the Minister makes plain that this will not become a charge on council tax payers via the police, or the taxpayer. If the person has committed an offence and is arraigned by the police and charged, he should also be responsible for whatever storage and demurrage charges relate to that vehicle. The police are not able just to park the vehicle in a lorry park; they are obliged to park it somewhere secure, which could involve lots of money. In the Minister's reply, I hope that we get an answer which relieves the police and through them the taxpayer or council tax payer of the costs.

Earl Attlee: In practice, most of the time the deposit would be paid with a credit card, debit card or company charge card, so I suspect that it will not be too much of a problem. We need the deterrence of impounding so that the driver magically finds his company payment card. But what happens if subsequently there is no case to answer and significant storage charges, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred, have been run up? If a vehicle has been stored at cost for, say, a week, while the matter is sorted out, perhaps the operator has incurred quite significant charges because he has failed his customer. Who pays those storage charges that may be legally required, but for which there is no case to answer?

Lord Davies of Oldham: I had hoped that I had covered most of those points in earlier debates, but perhaps not with sufficient accuracy. I will do my best to be precise on this occasion. The purpose of the deposit scheme is clearly set out in Clause 10. It enables officers to demand a deposit to guarantee equal treatment of everyone who breaks the law. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, quoted the number of people—a very considerable number—who fail to meet their fines and effectively abscond with the vehicle and return to the country of origin. That is why we are out to remedy an abuse by making sure everyone is treated equally.
	That requires, first, the right and powers of the officer concerned to enforce a deposit. If it cannot be paid at that point, a little discretion may be exercised, but the vehicle does not move until the deposit is paid. If the vehicle moves, it will go into storage, as happens now. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is right. Storage costs mount up. They are not inconsiderable. However, if the case were dismissed, it would not be by a decision just of the enforcing officer. By definition it would go to court. If it were rescinded, it would be for the court authorities, the judge or magistrate, to make a decision on costs.
	Should an extraordinary miscarriage of justice have occurred through a wrong identification of the person responsible, not only would the individual go free, but almost certainly no charge would be made on the company that owned the lorry. That would not be fair. It is where appropriately society bears the costs of dealing justly with people. If they are found innocent, by definition they ought not to bear excessive costs. I think that is the answer to the question put by the noble Earl.
	However, in most cases officers will not make mistakes; quite the opposite. They will have identified that an offence has been committed and will expect the money to be paid. If it is not forthcoming, they will want reassurances either that they can get the money because the address given is significant enough for the penalty to be pursued effectively and the issue is thus resolved subsequently, or if they are uncertain about the address and suspect that it may be part of a pattern of absconding scot free by not meeting the obligations of the offence, at that point they will take action. If no money is available, the vehicle will go into store. It is then the responsibility of the driver and the people who own his vehicle. The costs would accrue to them accordingly. So I do not think that there is a problem either in principle or in practice on how the system is to be enforced.

Lord Berkeley: Would my noble friend help me on a point that has been worrying me for some time today? Will the officers who take deposits be able to process credit cards? Perhaps I missed the point, but will they have a little machine? How will they take the payments? We do not all go around with several hundred pounds tucked into our left sock, as people did in the old days. How will the money be collected in practice?

Lord Davies of Oldham: It is right to say that we live in a relatively cash-free economy and it is likely that a foreign driver will not be carrying huge amounts of sterling. So the answer is that a credit card system will be used.

Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. He has dealt with most of our points, but the more we look at the deposit scheme, the more questions are raised on how it is going to work fairly. The legislation makes it clear that a constable can first freeze a vehicle wherever it is and in writing can then order it to be taken by the person driving it to a safe place. So it will be very much in the hands of the officers on the road where the vehicle goes. That returns to my point. If the driver is directed to take the vehicle to a car pound, one situated next door to a secure car park, by definition the car pound will be that much more expensive than the car park. There are questions here about where drivers will be required to take their vehicles, how they are to be identified and whether it is to be in the hands of the police themselves to indicate which depot or holding place is to be used.
	The noble Lord also touched on a point that we all want to be sure about: what happens when a deposit is taken? How will it be done? Can I presume that a receipt for the money will be given? We will need to dig out quite a bit more information one way or another. In the mean time, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]

Lord Davies of Oldham: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 13, line 1, leave out "A statutory instrument containing such an order" and insert—
	"(4) No order shall be made under section 90B(2) of this Act unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under section 90A, 90B(1), 90C or 90D of this Act"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
	Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
	"DRIVING OR BEING IN CHARGE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT
	(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52 ) is amended as follows.
	(2) For section 5 substitute—
	"5 DRIVING OR BEING IN CHARGE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION ABOVE THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT.
	(1) If a person—
	(a) drives or attempts to drive a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, or
	(b) is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place,
	after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit as defined under subsection (2) he is guilty of an offence.
	(2) The "prescribed limit" means, as the case may require—
	(a) 22 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath,
	(b) 50 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, or
	(c) 67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine.
	(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (2).
	(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection 1(b) above to prove that at the time he is alleged to have committed the offence the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving the vehicle whilst the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine remained likely to exceed the precribed limit.
	(5) The court may, in determining whether there was any likelihood as is mentioned in subsection (4) above disregard any injury to him or any damage to the vehicle."
	(3) In section 8(2) for "50" substitute "35".
	(4) In section 11(2)—
	(a) for "35" substitute "22"
	(b) for "80" substitute "50", and
	(c) for "107" substitute "67"."

The Earl of Dundee: Amendment No. 42 seeks to introduce a lower drink-drive limit, while Amendments Nos. 44 and 43 support targeted breath testing and random breath testing respectively.
	Amendment No. 42 would lower the alcohol content for drinking and driving from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. The current alcohol limit is 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, or approximately four units, depending on factors such as age, sex and body weight. However, alcohol can impair driving at levels much lower than that. Ideally, drivers should not have any alcohol in their bloodstream at all. A lower limit would help reinforce the message of "none for the road".
	In 1997, a study commissioned by the Government indicated that a lower drink-drive limit could prevent 50 fatalities per year. Earlier this year, a study by University College London revisited these figures and estimated that 65 lives could be saved per year through a lower limit. The current blood alcohol limit is among the highest in Europe. Only Ireland and the United Kingdom retain a limit of 80; in the majority of other countries, the limit is 50. In several other European countries, the limit has been lowered to 20, or even zero.
	A recent Home Office survey indicated that a majority of drivers would support a lower limit, with 62 per cent in favour. Action is of course necessary to deal with drivers who are well over the limit as well as those who currently drive with a BAC of between 50 and 80. However, as a spokesman for the recent inquiry commented:
	"When you're thinking about keeping burglars out of your home, you don't say 'I won't bother to fit locks to the windows, because they'll do nothing to prevent burglars coming in through the doors'— you fit locks both to the doors and to the windows".
	So while reducing the limit from 80 to 50 may well do little to save the 400 and more lives lost each year from driving way over the 80 limit, there is no reason for not acting to save around 65 of the 130 or so other lives that are lost each year from driving at around the limit of 80 by reducing the limit to 50—acting to save those lives by reducing the limit to 50.
	Amendment No. 44 would allow police to undertake targeted breath testing for a maximum period of 24 hours where an inspector believes that drinking and driving may be taking place. After more than two decades of significant advances in combating drink-driving, casualties from drinking and driving have again begun to rise. In 2002, there were 560 fatalities and 2,820 serious injuries from crashes involving illegal alcohol levels. This compares to a low point of 460 fatalities and 2,470 serious injuries from drink-driving in 1998.
	The failure to continue the reduction in drink-drive casualties is of significant concern. Action to prevent drink-driving needs to be incorporated as a key element in the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy.
	However, despite this, the number of roadside screening tests for alcohol has been declining, while the percentage of positive tests has been rising. In 2001, there were 624,000 tests, of which 16 per cent were positive. That compares to a peak of 815,000 roadside screening tests in 1998, in which 13 per cent were positive. This percentage rise in positive tests may be due in part to more selective testing by police, but the rise in the percentage of drivers and riders killed while over the blood alcohol limit—from 15 per cent in 1998 to 19 per cent in 2002—suggests that the prevalence of drink-driving is rising.
	Effective enforcement is central to reducing drinking and driving. A number of studies have shown that enforcement and the perceived likelihood of getting caught can have a major deterrent effect on the levels of drink-driving. One recent study suggested that, if the level of breath testing were to be increased ninefold in Great Britain, the proportion of drivers who died with BAC in excess of 100 milligrams to 100 millilitres of blood would fall from 20 per cent to 12 per cent. It would also significantly reduce drink-drive casualties.
	However, current testing levels are among the lowest in Europe. In terms of tests per head of population, only Ireland and Austria have a lower rate of testing than the United Kingdom. In 2000, the United Kingdom conducted one screening test for every 67 people. In the Netherlands the figure is one in 16; in Spain, one in 30; and in Finland one in four. The European average probability of being breath-tested is one in 16 inhabitants. In a recent survey, 91 per cent of United Kingdom drivers reported never having been checked for alcohol in the past three years.
	There are no express police powers to permit targeted or intelligence-led breath testing. As stated in the Government's road safety strategy, Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone:
	"At present, the police can stop any driver but can carry out a breath test only if there has been a road traffic offence, an accident or if they suspect that the driver has been drinking. We are looking at rationalising the law because the current practice is too restrictive. We want the police to have powers to breath-test people driving at locations where it is reasonable to assume an amount of drinking has taken place".
	A consultation document on combating drink-driving published in 1998 also proposed introducing targeted breath testing. However, no action has yet occurred and the Government have reversed their position. While some police officers at an operational level believe that the current position allows them adequate manoeuvre for stopping drivers, the extension of the powers to allow more widespread and targeted breath testing would send a clear message to all road users that the chances of being stopped by the police had increased significantly.
	Amendment No. 43 would give police the power to undertake random breath testing, which is also not allowed as yet. Random breath testing would permit police to stop vehicles at random for the purpose of conducting breath tests. It is wider than targeted breath testing, but the two strategies are not mutually exclusive. In most European Union countries, the police are entitled to use random breath testing, the only exceptions being Denmark, the UK and Ireland. A Swiss study in 1998 found that random breath testing was one of the most cost-effective safety measures that can be implemented, and minimum levels of random breath testing is one of the main elements of the European Commission's recommendation on enforcement in the field of road safety.
	Increasing drivers' perception of the probability of detection is key to reducing alcohol-related casualties. That may be best done when enforcement is unpredictable in terms of time and place and deployed in a widespread manner to ensure broad coverage of the road network. A recent Home Office survey found widespread support for random breath testing, with 86 per cent of drivers in favour, including 70 per cent of those drivers who had admitted to driving while over the limit. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: I have an amendment in this group: Amendment No. 54. Alcohol is clearly a problem, but so are drugs. My amendment is similar to and based on the existing provision for breath testing for alcohol. I moved a similar amendment during the passage of the Transport Act 2000.
	I believe that if there were primary legislation in place to provide for saliva testing for alcohol, there would be a greater chance that manufacturers would develop suitable equipment for testing for drugs. As for the blood alcohol limit—the BAC—the Minister has the right approach. Our ethos is that, if you break alcohol laws in the UK, you will be in very serious trouble. Other countries have lower BAC levels, but they also have graduated penalties, which I think sends the wrong signal—that an alcohol level a little over the limit is not a problem. I believe that we should stay where we are and that our current policy strikes the right balance. I am grateful that the Minister has resisted lowering the BAC.
	However, I should like to see random breath testing for all drivers; I should like to see a trap whereby everyone gets a breath test. I have not had a breath test in 20 years, although I have driven thousands and thousands of miles. Yes, of course I am no risk in terms of alcohol, but I feel that I should have been tested just occasionally. It would make me feel good, because I adhere to the law.

Lord Monson: The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, argued that in many other European countries, the limit is 50 milligrammes, and in a few cases zero milligrammes. That may be the case, but as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, and in my experience, it is not really enforced. Scandinavia may be different, but the further south and east you go, it is not really enforced. You see quite a lot of people knocking back quite a lot of wine or beer at lunch and driving off without worrying whether they are going to be stopped. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, the penalties are usually quite low.
	The argument is that even a small amount of alcohol adversely affects, to some small degree, driving performance—but so do all sorts of things. If you do not eat at all, your blood sugar level falls; if you eat too much, the blood goes from your brain to your stomach, making you drowsy and therefore dangerous. If you are up all night listening to pop music, or whatever, drinking nothing but Coca Cola, you are a real menace on the roads. That is far more dangerous than having a couple of glasses of something while listening to a Mozart symphony.
	The situation may be slightly different here—although I cannot believe that it is very different—but American experience shows that 23 per cent of accidents are caused by people falling asleep at the wheel. That is a very difficult offence to prove. I can think of only one case in which someone was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving as a result of falling asleep, because the police cars had followed the driver and seen him weaving around the road and noticed that his eyelids were drooping. It is terribly difficult to prove, for obvious reasons.
	What about the morning after? It is well known that alcohol remains in the bloodstream until the next morning. So what about single parents who have to run their children to school in the morning, there being no other form of transportation? Does it mean that they will not be able to drink anything at all with their dinner except on Friday and Saturday nights? If they have a part-time job on Saturday mornings, they could drink only on Saturday night.
	I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that we should concentrate more on driving under the influence of drugs, and leave the limit where it is at the moment.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 42, to which my name is added, before referring briefly to Amendment No. 55, which is also in my name in this group. I remind the House that I am the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
	I support everything that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said to Amendment No. 42. I have a couple of small points to make. One is that reviews of lowering the alcohol limit in other countries have shown that it can be accompanied by a reduction in drinking and driving at much higher levels of alcohol. A lower limit would send out a general education message and set the tone for no drinking and driving.
	On Amendment No. 42, RoSPA believes that a lower drink-driving limit should not be introduced in isolation but as part of a wider package of drink-driving measures, including education and enforcement initiatives. Currently the police can stop any driver for any reason, but they cannot require a breath test unless they suspect that a driver has consumed alcohol, the driver has committed a traffic offence or has been involved in an accident. Allowing the police to administer a breath test without needing any other reason would increase drivers' perception of the risk of being caught—as has already been mentioned by previous speakers—without necessarily placing additional demands on police resources. It would allow the police to target their resources at areas and times where intelligence indicated they would be most effective; for example, at locations where it is reasonable to assume that drinking may have taken place.
	This amendment may be opposed on the grounds that it erodes civil liberties, but I would maintain that drink-drivers also erode the civil liberties of everyone else on the roads. Drink-driving is such a serious offence that it justifies giving the police wider powers. I understand that a Home Office survey found that half of respondents felt that they could drive over the limit once a week for a year and not get caught. The perception of the chances of being caught, therefore, needs to be raised to act as a greater deterrent, and that is the aim behind this amendment.

Lord Bradshaw: I think that my name is also on this group of amendments.
	I should like first to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on the necessity for an effective roadside test for drugs. That has been a long time coming. The Minister may well say that we do not yet have an effective roadside test for drugs, but I suggest that it is time that we did. The drugs concerned have been around a long time. One of the resources wanted by police who stop those who drive erratically is some sort of evidential test that they have indeed been using drugs. A breathalyser does not give that information. They are obliged to rely on tests which I think were used 30 years ago by the police, such as asking, "Can you walk a straight line, and can you touch the end of your nose with your finger?". That is not very scientific.
	If the person cannot touch the end of his nose with his finger, he has to be taken to a police station. Then, he has to give a blood sample, which requires the attendance of a police surgeon. As the Minister knows, police surgeons are not in plentiful supply; in fact, it has been a great problem finding people to be police surgeons. If police surgeons are being dragged out of bed at 3 am on a Sunday to deal with violent people or people suspected of taking drugs, one can understand why the problem exists. So I would first press on the Minister the need for a simple evidential test that the person is likely to have been taking drugs. It is an issue that we want out of the way.
	The next issue I should like to raise is intelligence-led policing—an issue that we talk about a lot. Every police force has big notices around their headquarters extolling the virtues of intelligence-led policing. I think that intelligence-led policing would, as a first step, suggest that, if you are going to administer a test for alcohol, you would do it close to premises where you knew that alcohol was being dispensed in large quantities. We all know of the places, mainly in cities, where alcohol is dispensed without any limit at all and people are plied with as much alcohol as they can drink for £10 or £15. Surely, any form of intelligence-led policing must point to the police having powers to test people around places where alcohol is dispensed freely. Obviously the people coming out of there are the most likely people to be consuming alcohol.
	The third issue to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention is another serious matter, one which I have raised with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal. It concerns the number of disqualified drivers—disqualified due to drink-driving—who are driving. I raised with the noble Baroness the case of an individual who had been before the magistrates in a court in the Thames Valley on three occasions. He had been disqualified on each occasion. He required an interpreter. That is a familiar ploy on the part of foreign nationals, particularly those from eastern Europe who say that they speak only some peculiar version of Serbo-Croat or Hungarian, knowing very well that it is difficult to get an interpreter. Then, the probation service has to provide a report on the individual's behaviour. If on the third occasion the probation service has not provided that evidence, the person is set free.
	I did not receive a satisfactory answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, although I received a very long answer from her. Countless disqualified drivers are driving today who have been disqualified mostly for drink-driving, sometimes for driving while being on drugs and sometimes for other reasons such as for driving stolen cars. Although I have much sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, about reducing the alcohol limit, I believe that there are far more pressing problems that we ought to address. We ought to give the police more shots in their locker, as it were, to deal with a problem that, I am sure, we all know exists.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My amendment is grouped with the amendments that we are discussing but is slightly different to some of the others. First, I should like to comment on the other amendments. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, no alcohol in a driver's blood is the ideal situation. However, given the state of society it is unlikely that that will occur. My amendment suggests that, for new or novice drivers, that position should apply. It relates to a later amendment that I have tabled, which asserts that we should have a means of identifying such drivers. Unless you can identify them, there is no way that you can control them in a different manner from anyone else.
	The nil alcohol level for new drivers is desirable. Every state in Australia has its own powers on drink-driving, but they do not differ much. I refer to the powers in New South Wales, where I have chapter and verse. I am not sure whether its blood alcohol concentration levels follow the same pattern as ours, but it is interesting to note that New South Wales claims that a BAC level of 0.05 doubles the risk of an accident; a BAC level of 0.08—which is only a little more—increases the risk of an accident by seven times; and a BAC level of 0.15 gives you 25 times the risk of having an accident. Therefore, small increases in blood alcohol concentration result in a rapid increase in the risk of having an accident.
	The document states:
	"In NSW the Police have the power to:
	Stop drivers at random to test for alcohol.
	Arrest drivers who test over the legal limit".
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred to a drugs test. However, there is no proper drugs test that is absolutely conclusive, unless you carry out a blood test. The New South Wales police arrest drivers if they suspect that they are on drugs. In that case, the drivers must submit to blood and urine tests.
	The New South Wales police also make a big thing about publicity to avoid drink-driving and drug-driving. The police advise that drivers should plan ahead; arrange alternative transport; share a taxi with friends; catch public transport; stay overnight at a friend's place; ride with a driver who has not been drinking or taking drugs; or arrange a lift with a friend or relative. In view of the fact that the New South Wales police issue publicity on how to deal with the problem, they are tough on people who exceed the limit.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said that it was logical to have roadside testing near venues where alcohol was provided. In central London, such venues constitute clubs and pubs. However, given the congestion charge and the difficulties caused by traffic in the centre of London, there might not be as many would-be drivers who have been drinking emerging from the clubs in Soho as would be the case if there were parking nearby. I have never understood the British attitude that it was not sporting for the police to be somewhere where people were rolling out drunk; that is rubbish. When you are driving along in Australia, whether on a motorway or near a pub or whatever, there is a great caravan sort of thing pulled up and people say, "Oh, look out! That is the booze bus". As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, the greatest deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. Everyone is pretty careful the minute they see the booze bus waiting for them.
	The Minister said that Australia had a bad record of accidents, but it is hard to prove a negative. We do not know that the results would not be 20 times worse if they did not have those restrictions. That is no argument against alcohol restrictions and tough tests. Targeted testing and intelligence-led policing are all very well, but nothing is as effective as random breath tests. I strongly support Amendment No. 43, and I support Amendment No. 45, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on drug testing. He also spoke about random breath testing.
	In Australia, they are much stricter with young drivers. They have a restricted or "P" plate. The driving test goes through two stages: you must get your P1 plate, which you have for a year, before you get your P2 plate, which you have for 24 months. That makes 36 months in all. In that whole period, you must have a zero blood alcohol level. They issue information advising young people to check the products that they are using for alcohol content, because some medicines, mouthwashes and foodstuffs can contain alcohol. They advise you to look on the label to be sure, because when you have to have a zero level you cannot take anything like that. However, there is one interesting exception, which is that if you can prove a small amount of blood alcohol was caused by going to a religious service where you had that alcohol, that is a defence, but it is a very low level and you would have to prove that you were really at the religious service.
	The penalties for drink driving there are severe, and the convictions involve a criminal record as well as fines and licence loss. The important point, as they say, is:
	"Or worse still, you could be responsible for the death of a friend or an innocent person using the road".
	I am very much in favour of nil alcohol for novice drivers and random breath tests for everyone else. A lower limit would be a fallback position, but I would much prefer to see greater powers and random breath tests.

Viscount Simon: I have added my name to two of the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I support him completely. As it turns out, I have supported a number of other amendments, despite not having added my name to them. I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in her story about Australia. She may well know that the state of Victoria has targeted drink-driving harshly. The number of people who drink and drive there has fallen not quite to zero but very close to it.
	I should like to recount a story regarding a television programme many years ago about random breath testing in New South Wales. It was about a police crew doing random breath testing and various other things, but the random breath testing is what I shall address today. They had the cars queuing up for the drivers to be tested, and one driver said, "Can you please hurry it up because my wife is in labour?". They said, "Oh, is she?", and they went along and had a word with the lady. She was in labour, and she got a police escort—so there are benefits.

Lord Hanningfield: It has been an interesting debate, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response in a moment. However, we need to be careful before we alter the limits that we have in this country. Over the past few years, we have been successful in persuading people that they should not drink and drive. The whole culture in this country is that you know that if you drink too much you lose your licence. I support graduated points for speeding, but people suggested examples from other European countries where you do not lose your licence but get various points and so on.
	In this country, we have been successful over the past few years in getting people to realise more and more that they should not drink and drive. Therefore, the culture and the way in which we treat the matter is important. Although it has been an interesting debate, I am afraid that I do not support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Dundee that would reduce the levels of alcohol.
	However, I very much support what we have heard about from my noble friend Lord Attlee and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—that there is not a sufficiently successful way of getting to drugs and driving yet. We need to work much harder at how we do that. I believe—I am sure that a lot of us believe it—that that is a bigger danger, particularly with young people who take drugs and then drive. We need to address that.
	I hope that the Minister might agree with me in a moment that we need to be careful in this area of legislation. We have probably not been as successful as we might like, but we have had success over the past few years. We need to make certain that any legislation that we pass or changes that we make are not counterproductive. They must continue the trend that we have seen in this country of people realising that they should not drink and drive. Also, we must get something to stop drug driving.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I want to contribute briefly; I do not intend to speak at length, because virtually every point that I would have made has been made very adequately by previous speakers. Indeed, I made a number of the same points at Second Reading. I shall pick up on the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
	Will the Minister comment on the trend? I agree completely that drink-driving legislation has been one of the great successes of our road safety measures over the past 20 years. What concerns me is that the recent trend shows drink driving creeping up again. I wonder whether it is not the time to look at the sort of measures that have been suggested of bringing the limit down to the level that one would find in other European countries. The question of enforcement and powers for the police, particularly to target where they think that drinkers are getting into their cars, driving away and causing danger, needs to be looked at as well.
	I do not imagine for a minute that the Minister will agree to any of the amendments this evening. I am sure that we will have to come back to the issue in future. However, I ask him to pay particular attention to the alarming change in the trend, and the fact that the figures are going in the wrong direction.

Earl Attlee: I shall be very brief. I listened with interest to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I support the principle for new drivers, but a zero limit is impractical. It would mean that, for most of the next day if you had had a reasonable dinner the night before, you would not be able to drive.

Lord Berkeley: I want to follow on from what was said by my noble friend Lord Faulkner. The increase in people killed and seriously injured in the past five years is something like 22 per cent. For 2002—the latest figures that we have—that is 560 people killed and 2,820 seriously injured in crashes involving illegal alcohol levels. That is very significant.
	Why can we not have random breath tests? What are we doing? The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is right to say that it is as though we are at a sporting game. Let us have a sporting chance of getting away, like the fox in the fox hunting debate. Give it a chance; give us a five-minute start and we will get away. With this level of accidents, we cannot afford that. It is not a game—or it is a game with people's lives and we cannot have that.
	We need random tests and lower limits. Then we might make some progress in reducing significantly figures such as the 560 people killed in 2002 in alcohol-related accidents. Yes, education has been a success and the figures have reduced, but I agree with my noble friend that now is the time to move to the next stage to get the figures down. The figure is now much too high and we cannot play games any more.

Lord Monson: I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that there is one good reason why breath tests should not be totally random. Blowing into a breathalyser is extremely painful for anyone with a middle-ear infection and most of us have those at some time in our lives—I have, perhaps, had more than my fair share. It may be perfectly acceptable to subject people who are driving erratically to that pain and discomfort. I suggest that it is not acceptable to someone who is showing no signs of bad driving.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: On that last point, you always have the right to have a blood test. You need not be subjected to a breathalyser if you really would find it painful.

Lord Davies of Oldham: This has been a most interesting debate with a large number of contributors and some useful comments. The only thing that I would say to Back-Benchers who have contributed so ably is that, on this occasion, the two Front Benches are united and noble Lords should quail in the face of the great forces that are arraigned against them. I agreed with much of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, about the need to tread with some care in this area, given that we have one of the best records in Europe.
	I take seriously the stricture of my noble friend Lord Faulkner that we must be mindful of trends and that this past year's figures have not been welcome, to put it mildly. It is an indication that there may be a degree of complacency about the issue and of less care being taken by drivers who take excessive amounts of alcohol. We need to keep the situation under the closest review. I reassure him and the whole House that we shall watch the situation very carefully indeed.
	But that does not mean to say that we think that the merits of introducing a limit of 50 mg in 100 ml of blood or even lower have been established. They have been examined and debated over a long period—almost as long as the drink-driving laws have been in place. I noted that the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, my noble friend Lady Gibson, was fair in indicating that RoSPA would not wish to see changes to the drink-driving laws in isolation—they would need to be a package.
	Given that we are concerned about the public response to these issues, there is no doubt that effective road safety measures must engage the commitment of the public to their fairness and justice and that it is prepared to abide by them. For every constraint that is the subject of law enforcement, infinitely more powerful is the compliance of our fellow citizens, if they regard the law as being fair and intelligently based.
	We know that the results of research from other countries, where legal limits have been reduced below 80 mg, are likely to have been affected by the influence of other anti-drink measures, too. In some cases, it seems that underlying trends and current factors such as publicity and enforcement policy were not always measured. So it is difficult to apportion the benefits that might derive from that sole factor of reducing the alcohol limit. Our research does not enable us to be as categorical as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was in his advocacy of the amendment. Quite rightly, he presented the argument with his customary force and eloquence and was supported by his fellow co-signatories. However, we are not convinced of this position.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned, the penalties in this country are enforced with great rigour and are heavier than those on the Continent. I am not sure that I can accept the definition of northern and southern Europe given by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, where anything goes south of some European Mason-Dixon line, but I understood what he was contenting; that is, that enforcement is not always done with the same degree of rigour in some countries. But it certainly is in our country, and people know that if they are caught breaking the drink-driving laws, there are serious consequences. There is a mandatory minimum disqualification of 12 months for the offence of driving or attempting to drive with excess alcohol, which can be combined with up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of up to £5,000. Most countries with a lower legal limit operate penalties a long way below these. We are of the view that enforcement, and the proper respect of the public for the degree of rigour that our society expects with regard to these laws—which I think was the main burden of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—are the most secure way of ensuring that we reduce drink-driving to the absolute minimum.
	The part of the debate that I have the greatest difficulty in coming to terms with was the cry of concern about those who are caught next morning because of excessive indulgence the night before. I am not sure that four or five hours in bed enable one to discount the law the next day on the grounds that yesterday was yesterday and has no implications for the morrow. If people are not below the necessary level, and therefore are a threat to road users, it seems to me that it does not matter what time they consumed alcohol, nor what time of day they drive a car and are a threat to others. I give way to the noble Earl.

Earl Attlee: I think the noble Lord was referring to my contribution regarding the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. It suggested a zero limit for new drivers. The problem with that is that if someone consumed a reasonable amount of alcohol the night before, even two pints of lager at 6 o'clock the night before, he would still have alcohol in his blood the next morning.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Well, there are hard cases. I assume that the noble Baroness would emphasise that people are all too well aware of the consequences of breaking the law and therefore are careful. Our objection to the noble Baroness's contention—apart from the extreme difficulty this year of taking lessons from the Australians in any aspect of our national life—is that we do not like the idea of a signal that says that when someone qualifies he should keep to a negligible consumption of alcohol, but a few months later he is rather more qualified because he has had experience of driving so he can safely take a little more alcohol, because the law allows him to do so. We are not convinced that that is good practice.
	The noble Baroness contends—with great accuracy, I have no doubt—that of the citizens of New South Wales are law-abiding by nature, but we would be concerned about that signal in our society. We would be concerned about a situation where we said to new drivers that they could not drink alcohol, but that when they got a bit more experienced, they could take a little more. That seems to be exactly the wrong path to take to reduce—I give way to the noble Baroness.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I feel that I must point out to the Minister that statistics show that new drivers are the greatest risk to themselves and others on the road. The period is not six months, which is suggested in my amendment, but two years. It is believed that in two years they get into good habits of driving and good habits of drinking. Certainly the young in Australia have taken very clearly on board the fact that one of them, who is selected among the group to be the driver, does not have any alcohol. That was supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. That works very well. It is also beginning to work with the adult population who have been driving for longer.

Lord Davies of Oldham: It goes without saying that I am very pleased to hear that testimony. We will look at the evidence very carefully. The noble Baroness will recognise that we are reluctant to move from our present position until we are convinced in the round of the research on this matter. She has presented her case in her usual able fashion. We will look at it very closely.
	We monitor statistics not only in Europe—that goes without saying—but in other parts of the developed world to see whether we can improve our statistics against a background where I maintain that we are, in this particular area, one of the best countries in the advanced world. But, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner and others have indicated, there is absolutely no room for complacency.
	So I shall not accept the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and I hope that he will withdraw it. However, we recognise the force of the argument he has put and of the necessity of us addressing ourselves to this issue as far as our general road safety record is concerned.
	Turning to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Gibson, I see that they also address the question of enforcement. The amendments seek to remove a limitation provided by statute on the powers of the police to conduct tests on motorists. At present the law restricts breath testing, and the equivalent preliminary test for the impairment and drugs, to circumstances where an accident has occurred or where a constable reasonably suspects an offence is being committed.
	The issue of random tests has been the subject of public debate for a considerable period of time. It is not surprising that we have had both sides of that argument put with considerable force.
	The amendments would introduce random testing because they would take away the need for reasonable suspicion, allowing the police to make a requirement for the test without any prior cause. Many would regard this as a considerable intrusion that was unjustified in the majority of situations. I am open-minded at this point. We are still prepared to listen to the arguments. But I must say this: the police do not claim that they are hampered in their enforcement against drink-driving by this constraint on their powers. I do not say that enough random testing would not send out other signals. I think that that would be the burden of some of the remarks of those noble Lords advocating these amendments. But I do not have evidence that the police consider that the general drive against drink-driving is hampered by the fact that they do not have powers of random testing.
	Amendment No. 44 presents a slightly different approach. It is designed to limit the police powers in a different way. I recognise that this is a clever and subtle amendment that presents some interesting points. There is certainly a range of approaches to breath-testing policy. This one gives additional and free-standing powers to the police to establish what might be called campaigns of testing for a limited time and in a limited locality.
	The safeguard for the general law-abiding motorist is that these campaigns would have to be authorised by a reasonably senior officer and where someone who is required to be tested makes a request, he can obtain a written statement to explain the circumstances. I can see that the intention behind the amendment is to carry public support for blanket testing. So I recognise that the amendment has been well thought through. Nevertheless, it is a step too far, given the current practice of the police in enforcement against drink-driving. I reiterate that the police are content with their existing powers in this area and do not want to widen them, and that we want to test that against the effectiveness of police action and the response of our society to the measures.

Lord Blackwell: The Minister cites the police as having said that they are satisfied with their powers. What policeman is satisfied with his powers? Who is he citing?

Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord knows that whenever chief constables are exercised about their capacity to enforce the law, they have a whole range of measures by which to tell us what should be done. They sometimes do that in public, but an awful lot of consultation does not hit the public prints or airwaves. I merely reflect on the fact that we have not received representations that enhanced powers are needed on that offence, whereas we do in other areas of the law. That is often cited when we discuss what seems to be the myriad of Home Office Bills that descend on us from time to time.
	I am merely saying that, in this area, it is relatively quiet on the western front, so the noble Lord will just have to accept my point: we are not under pressure to extend police powers in that area. We are under pressure to continue the improvement. With campaigns, powerful publicity and enforcement, backed by our tough penalties, there has been a massive reduction in our drink-drive deaths since the 1970s. That is why I have taken on board the point made by my noble friend Lord Faulkner that there has recently been a change in the other direction. That is a cause for concern. The figure rose to 560; we will need to consider that carefully.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, again impressed me with his conspicuous courage—never failing to be in evidence in this House—but he will recognise that we do not consider the case for tests that he advanced as proven. His amendment is unnecessary. During the passage through this House of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, the Government accepted that police powers to test for impairment and the presence of drugs at the roadside should be updated. As a result, Section 107 replaced Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 with a new Section 6 and Schedule 7. Those provisions gave the police the power to administer preliminary tests at the roadside for alcohol or drugs where they suspect a moving traffic offence—where someone has been driving—or attempting to drive; or in charge of a motor vehicle; or if there has been an accident.
	The courage of the noble Earl is in suggesting that drugs should also come within that framework, against a background where our anxiety is clear. We have an established, independent, scientifically verified test for the presence of alcohol in blood. No one contests that. The scientific position with regard to drugs is much hazier. We are still some distance away from being able to be categorical and to propose a test or tests that command public confidence—especially as the drugs may have been taken for recreational use and therefore close to the consumption of alcohol. Drugs are present in a very high percentage of our fellow citizens—I was going to say "in a very high percentage of noble Lords", but I would not presume that—as medicine to treat complaints and for prescribed purposes. So, there are difficulties. It may be contended that by law anyone with a proven impairment of capacities should not drive, but we would need to know that the test was absolutely secure in those terms, otherwise rank injustices could be perpetrated against innocent citizens.
	The noble Lord has had the opportunity to present an interesting point. It does not make sense to discuss only alcohol as impairing driving capacity when other drugs have the same or worse deleterious effects. We do not have a test that is secure enough to put the drugs issue four-square with alcohol.
	I shield myself behind the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, who presented the arguments rather more cogently than I have done. I hope that I have chilled the souls of Back-Benchers so much that they are all determined not to press their amendments.

Lord Berkeley: How long will the Government continue to think about the issue? The accident rate has been increasing for five or six years—by 22 per cent, as I said. My noble friend said that the penalties were enforced with great vigour. The PACTS figures show that only one in 67 people are screened, whereas the European average is one in 16. There is not much vigour attached to that.
	The noble Lord will not accept a lower blood alcohol limit, and he will not accept random tests, on the basis that they are an intrusion on personal liberties, but 560 people are killed in alcohol-related accidents every year. How long before the Government will change their position and take the matter seriously? It looks as though there is a sporting chance that it will go on for much longer, which is unacceptable.

Lord Davies of Oldham: That is a very fair challenge. I merely reiterate that we change our minds and introduce fresh legislation when we are convinced of the evidence that points us towards more effective measures. At this point, we are not convinced that those exist. We are always conscious of the balance between law enforcement and public acceptability, and therefore public practice and action. We need those two to be in consort with each other. I respect entirely my noble friend's remarks. We are disturbed by recent figures; that is why we are looking at the situation with great care. But we do not think that some of the arguments behind the amendments are convincing enough.

Lord Bradshaw: We would be more convinced that the Government meant to introduce a Road Safety Act if some of the suggestions made had been taken forward. Given that this will probably be the only Road Safety Bill in this Parliament, the noble Lord is condemning us to another four years of inaction. I would have been more convinced, for example, if the noble Lord had said, "We will introduce legislation to introduce a drugs test as soon as one becomes available". In response to almost every question, the noble Lord has drawn in aid public perceptions or other such factors. He has sidestepped almost every suggestion.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I cannot commit myself to a timescale on drugs testing for the obvious reason that I do not know when scientifically we will be able to establish effective testing in those terms. I have conceded that drugs can impair driving efficiency. Alcohol does that. We have tests for alcohol and we act in a very stringent way in that respect—although not as stringently as people on some sides would accept. But, across Europe, British law is enforced with rigour in this area and more rigorously than in most other countries.
	Of course, if we were in a similar, parallel position with regard to drugs—where we were quite clear what the tests demonstrate, where impairment to driving can be established and the public become aware of the fairness of such tests—we would be able to legislate.

The Earl of Dundee: I thank the Minister for his remarks and all noble Lords who have informed the debate.
	As to the notion of introducing random and targeted breath testing respectively, I should like to reiterate a couple of thoughts. First, over the years we seem to have failed to continue a proper reduction in drink/drive casualties, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, reminded us. Secondly, all studies show that effective enforcement and the fear of getting caught present real deterrence, a point strongly put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bradshaw, and by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
	As regards the lower drink/drive limit proposal, I stress that the majority of drivers support it. Yet currently the United Kingdom has one of the highest limits in Europe. If we were able now to reduce it, we could then succeed in saving 65 lives a year. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
	Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.

Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [HL]

London Local Authorities (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [HL]

Pursuant to Standing Order 150B (Revival of Bills), Bills deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments together with the declarations of the agents; Bills presented and read a first time.
	House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.